March 2010 Blog: C-R theory responses

Within the last week, I have responded to a magazine article and responded to an interesting question from a reader.  That suggests a title for this blog: C-R Theory responses.

 I responded to an article in the March, 2010 issue of Astronomy by David J. Eicher, about the 5 big questions in astronomy.  The second question in that article, What is Dark Matter? (that part, starting on page 46)  My response-in probably exceeded the length of his comments on the likely nature of dark matter.  In brief, science has detected that the velocities of stars rotating around the centers of most galaxies do not fall-off with outlying distance, as measured from the center, [as they should if the inverse-square force of gravity is the sole explanation for the velocity of stars in the galaxy’s arms].

Mainstream science has speculated that there is a mysterious "new" substance called dark matter, which provides the missing mass to explain the much higher than expected velocities.

Here below is the (slightly modified) full response to that article. [Even if the response does get published in an upcoming issue, it is likely to be greatly shortened or truncated, to fit-in the letter section.]  Below is the C-R theory’s response:

Dear Sirs,

In response to your article in the March 2010 issue of Astronomy, by David J. Eicher, starting on page 45 about Astronomy’s 5 Big (unanswered) Questions, specifically the section starting on page 46, about dark matter, I would like to make the following suggestion: perhaps it would be better for "science" to spend more time considering the other 50% of the known (inverse-square) forces-at-large, (electromagnetism), before inventing something imaginary, like dark matter, to explain away the observations.

While I would concede that standard gravity is probably not the cause of the near constant velocity of stars measured in the outer arms of galaxies as one goes outward from the center of the galaxy, "Science" has been way too quick to dismiss the potential contributions from magnetism and electrical activity .  One might note the (near universally) large amount of polarized light observed in most (if not all) galaxies. Just recently, experiments like PAMELA and ATIC (Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter) have observed high-energy free electrons coming from the vicinity of the center of our own galaxy. This HINTS that there are electromagnetic -type processes going-on there that free-up enormous quantities of electrical charges. These charges CAN contribute magnetic fields that may help-to transfer some momentum and angular torque in excess of those derived from standard gravity.

    Just to make a point, one could demonstrate such a simple process with either a standard roll (from the green-plaid box ) of Scotch tape, just by pulling a small, 2-4" piece of tape off of the roll, (and see it being electrostatically attracted back to the roll [upwards]), or, try rubbing a balloon on a wool sweater (on a dry winter’s day), and then sticking it to a wall.  Either way, one can easily generate enough static charge to overcome the entire gravitational pull from ALL of earth’s mass [all 5.97 x 10²⁴ Kg. of it], although this "localized" static-effect rapidly fades-off with distance.

    I would propose that it would only take little more than one stray electrical charge in every 10⁴⁰th atoms to augment or to re-enforce the force of gravity.  One can easily determine that there are huge magnetic-based storms, loops, whorls and effects going-on, on our sun’s surface, and it wouldn’t therefore be all that unreasonable to suspect that collective-stray magnetic fields contributed-by other stars might effectively combine, to allow large groups of stars to "hold-hands", magnetically-speaking, and bunch, pinch, scrunch, and twist, or line-up without being overcome by gravity’s much wimpier (although still huge, by our human standards) forces.

    Before spending Billions of Dollars looking for Dark Matter , perhaps "Science" should investigate KNOWN phenomenon happening inside galaxies for evidence of magnetic and electrical fields, such as that indicated by POLARIZED light (plus polarized radio waves, microwaves, X-rays too).  These are much more likely, by my estimation, to make, or add a significant contribution to the velocity of stars motions observed, than a hypothetical dark matter, which does not show up in any earthbound measurement done so far.  You owe at least some consideration from standard-thinking to your readers before invoking the "near-magic" influences of dark matter.

    Interested readers can check out these simple ideas and much more, for free, at The Comedy-Recycling Theory (of the entire known universe) at www.cr-theory.org

Thank you,

Jerry Reynard    March 1, 2010  (Some colors added for extra effect)

A C-R theory reader wrote in and (paraphrased-here) asked: If matter in this universe is indeed less curved at the Great Attractor, and more curved at the outer edges (heading towards the Neutral Zone ^C-R), why wouldn’t the matter here (near earth) just rush out, into greater curvature, at increasing velocity?  Would that also explain the observed increasing red shift?

I figure that many readers out there may have had the similar thoughts, but not yet written-in.  To see my response:

Dear sir,

Thank you for writing in to the C-R theory. I do appreciate your asking the question. I haven’t given it as much thought directly, as to why curvature does not simply collapse the universe outward. I feel reasonably confident that the universe does not do so from a simple appearance. (We do not seem to live inside a hollowed-out shell.) The red shift is caused by a "time-constraint", or a greater bending at the outer regions.

One of the reasons that I do not believe the red shift is accelerating, and matter is not just rushing outwards, is the appearance of "The Great Attractor".  Part of the insight from the C-R theory is understanding the situation, vs. trying to understand the equation first.  As I was forming my concept, for why the Black-Hole ^C-R never collapses into a singularity, I "recycled" my understanding from an old answer, the situation involving the Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

If we did not see something like "The Great Attractor", I would not have nearly the same level of confidence that our universe does not expand, but also does not shrink.  I also suppose that I assumed that the universe is relatively stable, and is not expanding in size.  The way I imagined this universe, the properties of the Active Zone ^C-R, or the inside region of every Black-Hole ^C-R, will be totally stable over time, with the internal density and size constant over time.  I do envision some level of dynamic interaction occurring, especially with all of the electromagnetic activity going on everywhere.

[Let me add an aside here. If we imagine our solar system, where the various planets are each orbiting the sun in their own "year", each planet has a perihelion and aphelion every year in a cyclic-way.  Their orbital dynamics allow them to briefly change their position, but restore the overall stability . Try to use those orbital dynamics as a parallel, a rough guide to understand a stable system.]

I don’t know that I would have a way of proving it, but I think that the universe "kind-of takes-on a level of layers of stability", where matter somewhat "settles-in" to it’s own level [or zonal-range] of energy.  While matter here cannot "fall" inwards towards the Great Attractor, from the "pull" of matter there, as the conventional Newtonian ideas would believe, so also would there be no outward "pull" either.  Let me try to explain, below.

    If we imagined all the matter "outside-of" our location, as measured outward from the center of the universe, in an increasingly curved volume, or set of shells, something like the Russian Matryoshka (or nesting) dolls, with an increasingly smaller set inside, and an increasingly larger version outside, if we could "sum-up" the net gravitational curvature from all matter evenly distributed [in shells] outward, in all directions, the net "attraction" inside (even in a purely Newtonian sense) would be zero.

    I have read elsewhere that if we could visit the inside of any "hollow shell" of matter, regardless of it’s size or thickness, the net-sum of attraction, measured from anywhere inside that shell, would be zero.  Of course, our universe is not simply a shell, but consists of real-world matter.

I take it as a given that from anywhere further outside of earth’s position (as measured from the center of the universe), there would be a kind-of uniform distribution of matter.  The net-sum of the total curvature (further outward), as measured from any direction (inside), would still be zero in every direction.

    The matter further inside of us, nearer to "The Great Attractor", is not exerting a "pull" on us either. Our matter, at earth’s location, is worth less energy (or, is more-bent, curved, warped) than matter further inside. Since we do not normally "have" more energy, we simply cannot go there. HINT: If we deliberately set-out to acquire energy from some source, lets say, a rocket-engine, and pointed it so as to accelerate us inward, giving us that needed extra energy, we are not forbidden from going there, but there is an energy-price that must be "paid-up" in full, to travel there, nearer-to the "Great Attractor".

    {New insight: Consider the analogy of focusing sunlight with a magnifying glass.  As we concentrate more-of the sun’s energy into a smaller point, it gets hotter, or more energetic.  Now, consider matter’s state as something-like that, where the "least-warped volume of spacetime" is more "concentrated [per unit of volume]" and less "spread-out" or de-focused and de-centralized [as it would be when it is more warped].  That may make it easier to understand how the slowdown of time occurs, somewhat like the increased-pathlength that both light and energy must take whenever they reside in "more-warped" space.}

    [A second, new aside here . I do not know whether the time-slowdown occurs continuously and smoothly, or if it takes place by adding-in very small, discrete digital or fractal increments.  On the larger scales that we exist-in, we may never be able to detect the smallest changes with any practical level of measurement, as "on an atom by atom" measurement.]

    In short, I see our universe as having an incredible stability, size-wise.  It is not in imminent danger of collapsing inward (even if it is indeed, somewhat static).  In a conventional, Newtonian-type understanding, such a static universe would always start-to collapse inward, like an unstable house-of-cards.

In the thinking of Relativity, using Einstein’s equations to understand our universe, if it was "static", it would collapse UNLESS there was something repulsive (like Dark Energy) to counteract the inward force of gravity. If you only use the equations to understand our universe (like conventional science DOES), this universe is not stable, but must either be expanding or collapsing.

    In noticing a "closed-universe", the C-R theory claims that there necessarily must be a "preferred reference frame" superimposed over matter inside. This is not arbitrary or whimsical, but is due to the fact that the universe has a center , and proceeds outward in all directions until reaching full curvature.

    To answer your second part of the question, about radiation leaking-out of the universe into the Neutral Zone ^C-R, the way I understand curvature, this will not happen.  The radiation-photons will simply be deflected (bent or curved aside) to a new direction.  The closer to the Schwarzschild radius, the stronger the deflection becomes.  This is what completely "confines" matter and energy inside, in a very practical manner.

    There is perfect stability of a static-type C-R theory (closed) universe {although matter inside is "free" to dynamically interact}. The C-R theory uses curvature to explain and show why there is "a preferred reference frame" superimposed over it, if it is "closed".

If you would, consider a larger-sized jawbreaker, with it’s many internal "shell-like" candy layers (of different colors), to represent our "full" universe, then, cut it in half or quarter the sections to envision or to represent the various internal, equal-energy-levels of matter. At the very center, there is no curvature, and everywhere on the outermost shell represents "full curvature".

If we could "hollow-out" that jawbreaker’s inside, at any stage, anywhere inside any of the colored-shell-layers represents an equal-energy volume. {Before hollowing}, every shell closer-in to the center would be increasingly faster ( blue shifted) to us, and every shell further outside would be increasingly red shifted to us, and slowed-down.

    If I considered the jawbreaker as existing for all time (and not just recently manufactured at a candy factory), I would not worry about it’s size-state 100 years ago, or today, or 100 years from now.  It would always be "the same".  I would not worry about: will it expand or collapse; but understand it as very stable (if there was not a group of hungry kids waiting to devour it during my demo).

    I hope that above example helps explain how I "see" the universe, and why I see it as perfectly stable over time.  Since it is not expanding or contracting, it will be stable. NOTE: A C-R theory-type "closed" universe, with a "preferred-reference frame" superimposed over it, WILL NOT be isotropic, or the same in all directions or all locations. (But it DOES have a logical explanation for why our universe appears as it does.)

    {Another NOTE: Matter inside this C-R type universe is still free to dynamically interact, and there will be energy-flows, currents, magnetic fields, bands of concentrated mass, voids, collisions, and the like, occurring all the time.}

    If we were at the exact center of this type of a universe, we would only see red shifts, increasing uniformly in every direction, with increasing distance.  It would look identical (at a single point in time) to a universe uniformly expanding in all directions.  If one could look at both-type of universes, over a billion year time span; the before and after pictures would tell which of the two scenarios was actually the case.

    NOTE: The above view is ALMOST what we see, but, we ALSO see one region as "The Great Attractor."

    NOTE: As seen from one specific spot inside the C-R theory type universe, we would match very closely, if not exactly, ALL of the features that we really see in our universe.  To be honest, the view of the universe would be consistent over time in a C-R theory type universe, but the view of the universe would change or vary considerably over a billion year-time span, for an expanding universe.

    I wish I could assure readers that if they would check back again in a billion years, the C-R theory "view" would be proved right.  I do not expect any of the current "crop" of readers to be able to take me up on that challenge.

    Again, thank you for your question. It is very reasonable. I expect that the same questions may arise from many other readers (but that they don’t write-in.). I also thank you for reading the C-R theory. I do hope it will prove useful to you, and that, over time, you will choose the C-R theory as your "Theory-of-choice" to understand how our universe works.  Feel free to put it to the test, and check out new phenomenon as they are announced, and see if the C-R theory seems like a better "real-world-fit" to the observations.

    I do hope that the explanations here sound reasonable and plausible, and that I don’t have to bend-the-facts too much, or "convolute them" to fit the C-R theory views, but that they line-up naturally, on their own, and seem to fit.

    I have tried to explain the C-R theory more from a situational understanding, of how I understand the situation, rather than from "an equation-based understanding", where I read most of the current science books, look at the equations, and then try to figure-out what to anticipate next.  I am figuring that thousands of other scientists have already looked-at the existing equations for their wisdom, and in many earlier cases, that method has provided useful insights.

I believe I have achieved a different-type of insight and understanding, using a much different approach, but I have also added-in a return to some old-fashioned common-sense reasoning.

    The C-R theory approach is either right, or it is wrong.  Time will tell which of the many different possible theories is the most correct.

    Feel free to write in again if you have further questions.  I do anticipate that not all incoming readers will either agree-with my logic, or accept it at first reading.  I know that these ideas have been pre-dismissed, "before consideration", so there never has been a real, honest evaluation or discussion of the merits (and/or weaknesses) of these ideas.  I have looked-for, but not found, previous authors considering these ideas.

I do believe I have achieved simple and new insights, and I am trying to share those ideas freely with anyone else who will evaluate them.  I would gladly accept readers taking several years to re-consider these ideas, before accepting and advocating them.

    If I thought the C-R theory ideas were wrong, I probably would not have posted them on the internet, and attached my name to them.  As a "hobbyist/outsider" looking-in, I believe I have been able to understand some things in our universe in a new way, from "clues" hiding everywhere, in plain sight.

I have tried to guide others and show them: Where to look, What to look-for, What to check, and What to notice.  If there is nothing there, then no-one else will notice.  What I am trying to do is get others to recognize the same patterns, the same consistencies, the same type-of phenomena, and honestly evaluate them from a C-R theory perspective.

    If the C-R theory is true (or at least partly-so), I am hoping other readers will discover things that have not yet occurred to me, and extend the usefulness.  If they can discover something new or even more profound, or more inclusive, I welcome the company.

    If the ideas are wrong, I would hope that the readers can show me the areas of weakness or flaws in my logic.  If it is wrong, I certainly want to KNOW.  It is conceivable that with exposure to some 7 billion potential critics and skeptics out there, I may need to revise, correct, or abandon some parts of the theory.

    I may post some or all of this letter in the blog section, so that I can share this explanation with other readers.

    An abbreviated answer might be that the C-R theory says that the red shift in this universe is due to a time-rate change, rather than from the expansion (or even accelerating expansion) of the universe.

    Another new thought is: it is easier to change how we {humanity} understand the universe, than to provide an abundant new source of "free" energy, to expand and accelerate ALL of the mass inside our entire universe.  Is the simplest answer: To "move the entire universe" or, To revise our "human" thinking?

Jerry Reynard

That is why I have characterized this most recent blog as a response. This now is the 30^th year of my new understanding for the C-R theory.  I would hope that I can impart some sense of what I am seeing, and share it with as many people as possible.  The idea that curvature actually causes gravity (rather than the other way around), is quite new.  Appreciating HOW curvature influences matter, and physically changes or "modulates" it’s energy-worth (or content) is also unique to the C-R theory.

Realizing that, in a closed universe, there must therefore be a preferred-reference frame, means that space cannot still be "isotropic", or the same in all directions.  The C-R theory claims that this simple realization provides the simplest possible explanation for what our universe actually looks like.

I would ask the home-reader to consider, which of the following two is MORE likely:

A: That our entire universe, and ALL of it contents [and mass inside], are accelerating-apart at an increasing velocity, without any visible source to provide this energy. (or)

B: Change the perception of the people [especially scientists] to realize that there are likely flaws in their expectations, and the true situation is much simpler.

In the simplest solution, what we see elsewhere (the red shifted part) is NOT like here on earth, but is instead slowed-down by GRAVITY.  This means that what is measured SHOULD NOT BE CORRECTED with the ASSUMPTION that it has been slowed-down by a Doppler-shift, caused by accelerating-away from us.  Instead, the observations SHOULD-BE accepted as REALITY, or the way matter really is!!!!!

If one does that, one realizes that our universe is closed-off, contained, relatively static, still dynamically interactive, and is always similar.  It’s density is constant, it’s mass is fixed, and it is always safely inside an Active Zone ^C-R. This Active Zone ^C-R is the inside portion of every Black-Hole ^C-R, that keeps the mass from collapsing into a singularity.

That Active Zone ^C-R is always exactly critical, always has been, and always will be.  (That Active Zone ^C-R universe is larger than all the smaller Black-Holes ^C-R we can suspect are out there in our universe, but we cannot actually see, since they are black.)

HINT: There is nothing that prevents our entire universe from being a "lesser-sized Black-Hole ^C-R", located somewhere inside yet an even larger mega-universe.  There will likely never be any way to check this possibility out, until humanity achieves faster than light speed travel, and can wait the return of any crew brave (or foolish) enough to be the first to try it out.

I would like to establish the C-R theory as a reasonable alternative to the Big Bang, and a resource guide to those dissatisfied with answers from conventional theories.  I will attempt to refine my methods of presentation, to provide simple graphics or videos to illustrate my main points.

I am hoping to consolidate the phenomenon lists from a few blogs ago, and provide a suggested guide to already-known anomalies to use as a basis to understand some of the things missed by conventional theories.  I will attempt to provide a simple framework suggesting how the C-R theory believes this universe operates, what to look-for, and where to look.

I will attempt to explain WHY the C-R theory viewpoint matches the real-world observations better, and show readers things not anticipated by standard theories.  I will try to explain what is different about the C-R theory ideas, and why they are useful.

THE LHC IS BACK ON LINE.

I have read that the LHC is back on-line now, and that they have started-up circulating protons in both directions, and at low energies, to start a break-in period, and then start to increase the energies until new records can be set.

The C-R theory is one of the few sites I know of that expects almost no new or useful information to come out of the LHC, specifically because THE ENTIRE SCENARIO it is based upon, [the Big Bang], is wrong.  This means that, while they might discover a few new subatomic particles (or even a whole bunch of them), the existence of those particles will tell them nothing new or profound or useful about this universe.

{Although I do not HOPE I’m wrong, if they do come-up with profound new insights, I would celebrate with them.  The C-R theory leads me to suspect that this will not be the case, however, and I wanted to predict it ahead of time, rather than wait until after-the-fact.}

A HYPOTHETICAL "Note from God"

The thought had occurred to me to simulate a "Note from God", to: The LHC staff, stating that: If earth’s scientists really wanted impressive new insights into His universe, THEY could start-off BETTER by treating His PARTICLES of matter with more CARE and RESPECT, rather than by trying to first DESTROY many of them. 

STRONG HINT: Try ASKING the Creator nicely for new wisdom and ANSWERS first, and see if that succeeds better in gaining new insights.  (Hmmm, I wonder who might have already tried that approach for new understandings?)

Jerry Reynard

Addendum:

Having just seen the new movie Alice in Wonderland, they twice asked the question: Why is a raven like a writing desk?  (The question was never answered in the film.)  Since it takes a certain comedy illogic to answer, I had the answer before I got into my car to go home.

A:  A raven has an ink-black quill (feather) and a writing desk (in Victorian times) has a black ink well.

Q: Is that answer right?  A: No, but it's the only answer left.

Sorry for the illogic,  but that's the Comedy-Recycling theory answer to the question.

       There are a few new items to comment upon.  From a few different sources, but within the same week, I did find out about another person, Nassim Haramein, with a theory that comes to some of the same conclusions as the C-R theory in several cases.  He used different methods.  Many of his other ideas are probably less mainstream, and he is still coming from a more conventional starting point.  Here is a link to some of his videos.  There are many differences, too.  I do like that he tries to use fractal-like similarity into the scales of the universe, although I would differ that this is successful.  Most of the vastly smaller reference-frames like atoms and quarks are not as "identical" in the smaller sizes as they are similar.  I have not gone all through his videos, and some of them are very long.

       He does believe that atoms behave like (conventional) miniature black holes.  This is one clear difference area.  The C-R theory does not allow the knowledge of the inner electrical charge to leak-out or couple-out from inside the Black-Hole ^C-R.  Additionally, I doubt that the atom’s nucleus would have enough room inside to host a fully functional Active Zone ^C-R, required to establish the Black-Hole ^C-R in the first place, much less even to tolerate or accommodate a functional Neutral Zone ^C-R.

       Nonetheless, I would invite the curious to consider his ideas, and see if anything "resonates" with you.  I would not be surprised if there was not at least some truth and some good information that could be incorporated.  If I could "sell him" on at least 5 of the key concepts from the C-R theory, and then build upon those ideas too, I would not be surprised if something greater could be the result.

       Important areas from the C-R theory that were missed: The preferred reference frame superimposed over this "closed-universe".  Why gravity (or technically, curvature) is manifested outside a Black-Hole ^C-R, where as electrical charge and spin are not coupled-out.  C-R also claims that our universe is infinitely old, but does allow matter and energy to recycle.  We did not start off in a Big Bang!!  Most of the redshift and blueshift that we see is gravitationally-caused, and not Doppler shifted.  Also, the C-R theory maintains that our universe is fixed in size, perfectly stable, and is not expanding, much less, expanding at an accelerated rate.

       On the positive side, he is one of the few independent other people to also claim that we live inside a large conventional black hole, whereas the C-R theory claims it is a "A C-R theory-type, brand-name" Black-Hole ^C-R that we live inside.  I won’t cover all of those differences here, but they are addressed elsewhere in earlier blogs, and in the main C-R theory.

       A clear difference is that Nassim Haramein also believes that virtually everything has a singularity within, not just the conventional black holes themselves, but atoms, quarks, cells of organisms, bacteria, planets, animals, plants, stars, people, galaxies, and the universe.

       I do like that he attempts to explain the interactions over all ranges in terms of gravity vs electricity, including the manifestations of both the strong and weak forces.

       I do also like that he tries to think more fully, "3 dimensionally, plus time".  Most textbooks in math and physics treat the world as simplified, and flat, and 2 dimensional, whereas the real world is much more dynamic, and does use vorticies, rotations, torques, and coriolis forces.  Standard, equation-based thinking, throws out many of the real complexities in an attempt to simplify the equations, and loses some of the real dynamics in the process.

       Conventional science is sure to cringe at his attempts to link-in patterns included inside some crop circles as communications from elsewhere.  He does attempt to claim that there is both an input and output perpetually going on at all levels, at all scales, providing some type of feedback, or response.

       I do believe he has missed the many benefits that only the C-R theory considers, but almost 100% of mainstream science has missed these same items too.  I will give him credit that I believe he has noticed some of the same things that the C-R theory has noticed, but he has used a very different approach overall.  I did notice that at least one of his videos was not copyrighted, and he does want to share those ideas freely with anyone interested.

       I will state that I do sense a kindred spirit, with similar motivations to freely share his ideas, and explain a much bigger picture than normal science, which often seeks to limit new considerations to a very narrow specialization.

       Mr. Haramein does accept the expanding and accelerated-expanding universe, which imposes limits and constraints not faced by the C-R theory.

       Considering Nassim Haramein's theory may even make the C-R theory seem somewhat more reasonable by comparison.  It does offer the interested reader yet another alternative to consider.  There is quite a lot of material available on line, for free.  I do believe that the C-R theory could hold it's own in a head to head comparison.  There are certainly areas he covers where the C-R theory has no immediate intention to try to explain.  Since there are some similarities to the C-R theory, and some big differences too, I decided to comment, offer my ideas, and give any interested blog readers the opportunity to make up their own minds.

       As with the C-R theory, these new ideas are either right, or they are wrong.  Time may well tell whether the ideas can stand the test of time.  I do not believe any reader is misserved if they can find another new way that they believe the universe does or does not work.  The ideas are unique enough, and not available elsewhere, and they might be worthy of a look.

 

       In looking at statistics for the C-R theory site, there are more international readers than I initially expected.  Within the last half-year, the C-R theory has had more visitors from China and the former USSR than from English speaking countries like Britian, other UK countries, Canada, and Australia.  They’re certainly welcome, but it does surprise me, that they weren’t my intended target audience.  I may have to tailor my materials a bit more to cater-to wherever the incoming readers are coming-from.  I honestly do not expect them to understand the subtleties of the intentional word misuses, the puns, and the jokes within the Comedy-Recycling theory.  I will concentrate more on revising the Completely Recycling theory, where I have tried to limit the jokes puns and humor, but still explain the same core ideas.

       I do try to welcome everyone to the web site, and I would like for everyone to at least consider the C-R theory ideas for the first time.  I expect most to reject the ideas as too radical, and too different.  My hope is that I make enough inroads, sow enough "seeds" of what to look-for, where to look, types of phenomenon to notice, how to recognize patterns that the C-R theory claims should be there.

       I know of no other theory so bold as to "put it’s neck on the chopping block" so to speak, predicting excess electrons being released from EVERY feeding Black-Hole ^C-R.  If this does not go on, it should eventually be noticed, and the C-R theory could be safely discarded.  If it is noticed, it should be nearly impossible for conventional theory to "wiggle-out" of those findings, and explain it away.  I count on the fact that SOME of the many incoming readers of the C-R theory WILL recognize the situation, and remember that ONLY the C-R theory predicted such an outcome.

       One of the nicer things about using the C-R theory predictions is that one need not go too far to find a suitable location.  There is a HUGE anomaly, an astonishing excess of electrons, barely 93 million miles, or 150 million Km from earth, as near as our local sun.  One of the few theories that believes our sun is powered by an internal, small Black-Hole ^C-R, is the C-R theory.  The conclusion is fairly easy, as there is an enormous excess of electrons on our sun.  This is evident in our sun’s spectrum, easily detectable, when one recognizes that virtually every hydrogen atom in our sun’s photosphere, in spite of being heated to over 6,000 C^o, or almost 10,000 F^o, that every hydrogen atom EACH GAINS an extra electron!!!!!!!!!!!!  It is difficult not to overemphasize just how anomalous this phenomenon is, to conventional theory.

       To the best of my knowledge, ONLY the C-R theory CELEBRATES this fact, and rejoices in that finding.  While not proving that our sun is powered by a Black-Hole ^C-R, it is an incredibly supportive argument in favor of that conclusion.

       NOTE: If our sun is powered by the energy of hydrogen falling into a smaller Black-Hole ^C-R at the sun’s center, this process is at least 20 times, and possibly up to 50 times as efficient at extracting energy from the same amount of hydrogen consumed.  This implies a considerably longer lifetime available to our sun, as compared to the 50% over (half-used-up) expectation from conventional theory, if our sun is around 5 billion years old.

       Even more ironic than that, I have recently realized that if indeed our sun is consuming the heavier elements, closer-in to our sun’s core, rather than being "poisoned" by an ever enriched dietary percentage of helium as it grows older, our sun might actually be growing PURER in it’s hydrogen content with age, as the "heavier and enriched" elements will be dined-upon first, preferentially.  Unfortunately, it might take millions of years of prolonged observations of our sun’s levels of minor elements to detect whether the trend in levels of measured impurities is upwards or downwards.

            I do find it ironic that the very thing that would worry conventional theory, having our fusion levels choked-off over time by helium poisoning, and thus, causing our sun to expand, grow larger, and "burn" helium into heavier elements, may be the least-worrysome longterm danger we face.

            In a very similar situation, covering the release of the stored-up (in an inactivated-mode) positive charges released from the nova, supernova, quasar, Seyfert galaxy, and gamma ray bursts.  I know that there are sites on the web showing the levels of multiple-positive ionizations (+5 valences and above) found in supernovae remnants thousands of years old.  There are enough instances of polarized light (and electromagnetic radiation across the full spectrum) to start to recognize the enormous levels of electrical and magnetic fields in galaxies, nebulae, and gas clouds everywhere.

 

            When it comes to providing the simplest possible "reasonable" explanation of the appearance of our universe, I can think of no better candidate that the C-R theory.  Rather than needing a bevy of at least 5 or 6 improbable, illogical, anomalies, needing continual "gifts" of "magic-energy", coming from absolutely nowhere, yet with ever-increasing demands, science has not questioned, could our choices made back around 1929 have been wrong, all along?

            Let me give you a simple description of the C-R theory view of our universe, as it is seen.

            Our universe is a closed-universe.  It has exactly enough mass at the right density to perfectly maintain [or contain, gravitationally] everything we see.

            The structure of this perfectly closed universe is 100% stable, and energy-referenced by location.  The most highly curved mass is at the outer edges.  Mass here is the most bent- curved, warped, and slowed-down.  It is not permitted to "fall" inward unless it can gain energy it does not have. (However, it can trade energy, receive energy, receive unbalanced electrical charges, and freely interact.)  As one proceeds inward, towards the center, matter there is less slowed-down, or less redshifted to us.  Here on earth, we are closer-in to the center, and, hence, more energetic, than most of the matter in this universe.

            To any matter in this universe which appears redshifted to us, we would appear similarly blueshifted to it.  Closer in towards the center of this universe, matter there is blueshifted to us.  The most blueshifted place in this universe is the center.  It is the least-warped, the least-curved, the least-bent volume in this universe.  Since matter there is worth more energy, we could not "fall" towards there.  We would need to acquire additional energy in order to travel there.

            NOTE: Since our universe is completely closed-off, it can never lose or radiate-away any of it’s internal energy.

            NOTE: With the aid of countless Black-Holes ^C-R located inside our universe, matter and energy do recycle with 100% efficiency.

            NOTE: Our universe NEVER violates conservation of energy, never runs downhill, and remains continually dynamic over extended time.

            NOTE; The 2.7K background radiation we measure is NOT the remnant of the Big Bang.  It is instead the averaged-out indication of ongoing recycling, coming equally from every direction.

The 2.7K is more akin to the roar of a nearby waterfall.  It is continually replenished, and will never cool-down over time.  That value will vary as one changes position from within our universe.  The 2.7K value is only valid as seen from earth, or anywhere-else on a spherical-shell, equidistant from the Great Attractor.

            NOTE: The net sum of all the products from every nova, supernova, quasar, Seyfert galaxy, active galaxy, and gamma ray burst, averaged-out over time, is the 2.7K we see from earth.

 

            If one takes Occams’ Razor into account, the principle that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct, I will publicly challenge ANY theory to give a simpler, and more logical explanation than the brief summary above.

            NOTE: The C-R theory needs no beginning anomalies.  All that the C-R theory needs is that this universe HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, it does now exist, and it always will exist.  It always looks very similar to what it looks like right now.  EVERY process we see going on in this universe TODAY (even if it actually occurred long-ago, in the past) is still going on, somewhere else, at this very moment.

            HINT: That does not mean it is going-on at the same real-time rate as we experience here on earth!!!

Last modified 2, 2, 2010

Reader Note: Both the December issues of Discover Magazine, and Scientific American have Black holes (generic ones) as the subject on the front cover. From the C-R theory standpoint, the Scientific American article, Portrait of a Black Hole, (page 42), is much more useful, more specific, and much longer, and I’ll briefly cover why, here.

If you, the home-reader, take nothing else away from the Scientific American article, it does contain one real gem, rarely found in articles accessible to the general public, or stated so succinctly. A Black-Hole^C-R "releases" energy from matter some 20 times as efficiently as fusion!!!!! Couple this fact with the idea that the long-run, mass-consumption by the Black-Hole ^C-R is not "poisoned" by enriched helium content, as the hydrogen for fusion would be.

[Your cranial-lightbulbs (as in: Aha!, I understand it now!!) should turn on (especially after I suggest it to you, here]; Why not use that more efficient energy mechanism to power ALL (or almost all) of the objects seen emitting energy in this universe? After all, if I had a car engine that got 400 miles per gallon from the same fuel that with the standard engine got only 20 miles per gallon, I would be a fool indeed if I didn’t use the more efficient method first (if the "cost" of obtaining that energy from a fixed-amount of fuel was relatively equal).

Additionally, the article also mentions that after the infalling-mass surrenders tremendous energy by falling nearer-to a Black-Hole ^C-R, "something" jets-out from the poles at 99.98% of lightspeed, in the OPPOSITE direction. Conventional science has absolutely NO idea why this is so. This is the second item I would like to dwell more extensively on.

WARNING: Since the situation being considered above is, in itself unreasonable, might it not be "reasonable" that the proposed solution be almost equally unreasonable, too?)

Briefly, the C-R theory says a Black-Hole ^C-R is a mass-sieve device (pun intended), which sorts, then consumes sub-atomic particles BY MASS. The protons, and proton-neutron combinations are consumed, then stored in an isolated, turned-off manner. The area that holds the charged particles stores them in a thin volume, an outer shell or region where technically "the escape velocity is above light-speed". [Akin to keeping your change, stored-up in a piggy-bank, for a long time.] A Neutral Zone ^C-R is the literal name that the C-R theory calls this place.

The C-R theory hypothesis is that the outflowing-jets from active Black-Holes ^C-R are exclusively formed-up by the newly freed-up electrons. {No protons or positrons are welcome here.} They become self-collimated by their mutually-moving magnetic fields, but they are also intensely trying to repel each other away. This intense magnetism "forces" the electrons to escape, confined in very narrow beams, at very high speeds. The magnetism from the moving charges keeps the two beams "tightly-focused" and intact for thousands, maybe millions of years. (It is easier for all electrons collectively to "go-with-the-flow", than for each-one to fight their way out from the Black-Hole ^C-R independently. Their magnetic fields also "superimpose a cage-like confinement", with a battering ram-like punch, that clears an exit-path very effectively. (Electrons in a bunch with a punch after munching on lunch, as Black-Holes C-R might say, beaming with punful-pride.)

A C-R theory joke goes like this: Why do electrons fleeing a Black-Hole ^C-R travel in jets? A: Because propeller planes take way too long.

The other explanations are found within sections of the C-R theory. All are very simple. They are harder for you, the home-reader, to BELIEVE or ACCEPT, than they are to understand. I also cover how to check nature, exactly where to look, and what to specifically notice that will clue-you-in to, Does nature really work this way?

On a sad note, all of these new articles still list Black holes (conventional) as monsters, lurking in the galaxies, waiting to devour whatever unfortunate victims stagger nearby. The C-R theory, on the other hand, tries to show home readers to appreciate the fine design, and noble purpose that nature truly intended for a Black-Hole ^C-R. Indeed, our life, here on earth, would be seriously less pleasant if it were not for our friend, the Black-Hole ^C-R, powering our sun. (Unfortunately, current science won’t discover or acknowledge this for many years to come.)

MORE LHC Speculations:

New item: Sacrificing quantity for precision. If we revamped the LHC, and limited it to a very few protons at a time, controlled with way-improved precision, then slightly vary the collisions incrementally, from a glancing blow, to full, head-on collisions, plotting the results, while tweaking the protons (or their constituent sub-quarks), we might get a useful list.

My "gut intuition" suspects that at least one parameter may be found that would allow particles to go faster, more efficiently, without simply increasing the mass of the particles. If this can be found, this lays the ground work to exploit that method, and increase the speed of travel while decreasing the energy needed to accelerate a mass.

Even more speculative: Consider a new particle, the whippet (a pun modeled from the roller-derby movie, Whip-it), a resonance-particle or energy packett that could catapult (or slingshot) a mass from sub-light speeds to supra-light speeds, kind-of "directly-bypassing" the troublesome middle, right at light speed.

I know of no way to reverse the process controllably, but if it could be done, that would be enormous progress towards warp-speed engines. It may be possible to use our existing LHC with only minor modifications, but with substantially enhanced individual precision on a per-proton basis.

Think of a billion-fold reduction in quantity, but a billion-fold enhancement of known-precision, or beam focus. Think of micro-control of each proton-proton collision, plotted-out in at least 10,000 precisely controlled angular sub-increments. This is where the truly new insight, and the future course of research, should be guided. I suspect that a "phasing" parameter can be found that will cause the collision speeds to be more effective, and reduce substantially the energy wasted on increasing the mass.

Analogy, consider a penny, placed flat, face-on, into a stream of water. As one turns the penny sideways, the resistance to the flow decreases, and turbulence decreases, too. If something like this can be noticed for sub-atomic particle interactions, the control might allow useful decreases in energy needed to start fusions or fissions, and allow substantial energy liberation-gains. This also suggests that we may be much closer to accomplishing faster-than light-speed travel, if we can note any modulation that works.

Second speculation with the LHC: Another very practical new application of the LHC would be to evacuate it of protons, and fill it with concentrated electrons. Allow them to be freed into a vacuum chamber, and see if they would approximate the behavior of the Black-Hole ^C-R jets that the C-R theory claims. Could scientists verify that the jets of pure electrons would magnetically hold-together, collimate, and maintain bunching in the same approximate manner as the jets seen emanating from Black-Holes ^C-R? Either they would, or they wouldn’t. This might help scientists understand that phenomenon now, instead of waiting for many years, until after the hi-resolution telescope pictures of Black-Holes ^C-R become available.

My guess is that science would find those two new results much more immediately applicable than the "junk" they will get when trying to understand the Big Bang. Since that scenario is false, almost no insights will be gained, other than a few possible new particles. (At over a billion dollars per new particle.)

Introduction to this blog, a continuation, Part II: Known Phenomena and the C-R theory ideas, speculations, predictions. (I counted 69 separate items in the first part of the previous blog from October.)

In the previous blog, I provided a huge list in many different areas of known items, or observations, that all seem to me to be more compatible with a C-R theory-positive view. All of those phenomena on the last list behave more like the C-R theory was true. This second list features additional items I wanted to remark upon, including speculations, predictions, ideas, new answers and comments that weren’t simply observations of already known phenomenon. These items should continue to build-up the C-R theory’s case, adding to your personal ability "to notice and comprehend an ongoing layer of operation in this universe, completely unsuspected by standard theories, and not anticipated at all from a Big Bang type hypothesis".

My goal is to get YOU, the home reader to at least allow that the C-R theory can contribute positively to our mutual ideas of how this universe operates, and show areas where the C-R theory seems to have a better handle on what to look-for, and where to look for it, then how to fit-in those known observations to re-understand the operation of the real world.

If this second list, in combination with all the items from the first list, in my previous blog, does not convince you that there is something valid to the C-R theory, [which does not conform to the standard theory expectations], I will continue to add to this list in the future. Sometime after the initial posting on-line, I hope to have these two blogs combined into an easily downloadable PDF-type document that readers will be able to study at their leisure. I hope to add in many links, and suggest web pages you can check out if you are interested in exploring independent views, without the C-R theory’s spin.

Readers: It is optional to skip the below text in blue:

Readers, please carefully contemplate these next two allegories before continuing:

Consider this "revised" Hindu fable of the 5 blind men and the elephant. A playful host, a wealthy maharajah, invites 5 blind men as his guests, to visit at his vast palace. Each blind man is given a personal tour by the maharajah, including a separate but unique encounter with the same elephant. Each man is presented with a different anatomical part to hold on to, to touch, to study, and to try to understand.

The first man is given the trunk. It hangs down, but it also flexes around curiously. It is constantly looking for food, water, seeking-out smells, and is often exploring.

The second man gets an ear to hold. It is flat, vertical, flapping, thin in one direction and wide in two other directions, and it moves the air as it flaps.

The third man is presented the side and the belly of the beast, at the middle section, to attempt to put his arms around. This part is somewhat "barrel shaped", round and oval, horizontal, and well off the ground. The fourth man handles one or more of the legs. About the size of a moderate sized tree trunk. The leg decreases slightly in size as it leads down to the ground.

The fifth man holds the tail. Slightly hairy at the tip, hanging down like a rope, it decreases in diameter to the end. It is sometimes whisked-around to ward-off flies.

When they are later gathered together, all of the men commented that they experienced the same type-of sounds and distinct animal smells. On those two points, they all agree. The maharajah then invites them all into a meeting room in his palace. There, each blind man describes his personal encounter with the "unknown" beast (we now know-of as the elephant), successively, to all of the others. Each carefully listens to the other men, but each man doubts the truthfulness, reliability, and observations of all the others in turn. Each man privately notes that none of the other men reports anything like what he personally experienced.

Besides being a nice little fable, this story above gently alludes-to (describes allegorically) the state of modern science attempting to understand the workings of our universe. The C-R theory is something-like the one who understands a bit more-of the whole picture, and is longing to describe the "truer" picture or situation to everyone else, who just "understands" their one smaller piece of the puzzle.

If you, the home reader, will approach the C-R theory in that same, open-minded manner, and try to learn from: what it looks-at, where it looks, what it says is going on; then you may not perceive that the C-R theory is as crazy as the "standard-thinking scientists" now do. They, like each of the blind men in the fable, are only seeing their little portion of what they understand, and they cannot yet imagine or comprehend the entire picture as seen from a "better", or more-encompassing viewpoint.

WARNING: If you try to understand everything that goes on in our known universe, only using conventional science, you run the risk, like each of the blind men in the above fable, of only understanding a smaller part of the larger picture.

HINT: If you are unwilling to change your understanding and learn something "new", in a "new-way", and you are not open to revising your thinking; the C-R theory’s ideas may then seem as crazy to you as each of the blind men’s accounts sounded to each of the others in the fable.

I apologize for earlier presentations, where I did not more forcefully present the C-R theory’s point that you need to revise your thinking to understand the whole picture. You cannot use "only" your current (conventional) thinking to fully understand the C-R theory’s point-of-view. You must change some of your long-held-beliefs, or you will be unable to see the new benefits gained from using the replacement C-R theory ideas. Otherwise, the C-R theory will seem like nonsense to you. It will definitely not agree with your pre-conceived ideas, and what is currently being taught.

It is quite likely that there is much more to this universe that even the C-R theory does not yet fully realize. There are some phenomena which will only become understood sometime far-into the future, as more of the secrets of this universe become known by piecing ALL of the observations together.

What is hopefully now apparent to you from the first blog’s list: there is much in this universe that is already known about, that, just like the 5 blind men in the fable, is not appreciated, or understood BY ALL, in the full context of the bigger picture, or the overall, ongoing operation. That situation is what the C-R theory is partially attempting to remedy.

A Second, much shorter allegorical story:

A "(p)Un"-wise decision: Current science is also like another traveler on the path of life, who, when coming to the "fork" in the road, says, "I’ll just wait here for the "spoon"!!!" Analogy: Not only does the spoon, {just like dark matter and dark energy} not exist (there at the FORK), but "taking the spoon" will give you no progress on your desired journey of understanding.

And now back to real Science:

Note: If you want to understand WHY gravity is "felt" outside the Black-Hole ^C-R, but heat, light, and electrical charge* are not (*the C-R theory says that electrical charge is not felt outside of a Black-Hole ^C-R, conventional theory says it is), ONLY the C-R theory will allow you to understand why. Conventional theory has no real clue as to why this is the case.

Additional Speculations, Answers:

PUN: If "g" ain’t broke, then why "FIX" it? ("g", the gravitational "constant", that is)

By the C-R theory view, the gravitational constant, "g", as a "fixed-value", does not really exist. Instead, (local) "g" is a changing variable, varying locally, by position, from it’s maximum value at the center of the universe, i.e., location.

The C-R theory says "g" is simply a local measurement of how effective gravitational curvature [as the agent to accomplish de-activation] has been in slightly shutting-down matter. (or how effective gravitational curvature is at partially shutting-down or deactivating matter.) If the location, as measured from the center, changes, technically, the energy-worth of matter [as measured by converting it back into energy] changes, too. MAKE DIAGRAMS, Energy-worth vs curvature, time slowdown vs curvature, distance from the center vs slowdown, by position.

Are there additional examples of proton-proton repelling? (after those found in the multiple-positive ionizations in supernovae?) This process achieves sustainable ionization levels way beyond those explained by normal fusion-power or expected temperatures. Using this mechanism, much higher energies and ionizations are sustained vs. those achieved by standard mechanisms. (i.e., the heat of fusion at the beginning of the supernova being the ONLY source powering the ongoing expansion)

NOTE: Conventional sources allow that up to 1,000 eV. (electron-volts) are released or achieved due-to each proton-proton-encounter, repelling each other away.

Hint: Release quintillions of protons simultaneously into a "freed-up-blob" of matter, and see what happens. All of the multiple positive ionizations noticed in supernova remnants might be a good indication (i.e., a clue) of high levels of continuing positive ionization, both CAUSING and starting the initial burst.

NOTE: Conventional theory does not understand or accept that ANY conventional process can provide energies at the levels seen from a GRB. (I read about a proposed Poynting vector process, considered as a possible mechanism to achieve the high levels that are seen.) Of course, they’ve pre-rejected the C-R theory hypothesis: that positive charges could-have-been consumed, effectively isolated and insulated over eons, then suddenly released in a cataclysmic "failure-of-confinement" or ripping-open of the Neutral Zone ^C-R. (Akin to breaking your piggy-bank, and recovering 100% of everything you’ve ever put inside it, all at once.)

That means, this sudden, multiple-proton-release process has never been objectively considered. Apparently, I would need to TOUT this possibility to some desperate graduate student as an opportunity to test-model or computer-simulate the C-R theory idea academically. Someone will be the first to take the credit for checking these results. Will the C-R theory ideas work, or are they, too, full of hot air?

(Note: I’m experimenting here below with adding some additional "brand-name" identifiable colors, to highlight or feature the non-generic C-R brand Black-Hole ^C-R, to see how it looks, both on screen, and printed on paper from this blog. If it’s unreadable, I will change it back to B&W or I could try all one color). My GOAL is to make the new term STAND-OUT, and be as unmistakable as possible.

PUN: Get the "Hole" Picture

The properties of a Black- Hole ^{C - R} are much more fundamentally integrated-into the workings of our universe, much more linked-in.  Lesser-sized Black- Holes ^{C - R} may be much more common if some (most, or all) stars are powered by a Black- Hole ^{C - R} .  See the previous blog for a large list of all of the related phenomena caused by this method.

Ask about it: Do any readers know how many other stars {besides our sun} (percentage-wise or number-wise) also feature double negative ionization of their photosphere’s contents?  I have not yet found a source mentioning it either on-line or in a book, for other than our sun.  (It took me 25 years to find out that it had been known about on our sun since at least 1972.)

Can I find it in writing anywhere? I suspect there are many stars that do (and hope so, too). The more stars that are found (or are already known) to be double-negative ionized, the better that fact is for the C-R theory.

NOTE: The most-recent issue, (December 2009) of Astronomy magazine (on page 45) answered a reader’s question as to the smallest known, hydrogen-burning star.  Called MOA-2007-BKG-192L, it is only supposed to contain between 6%-9% of our sun’s mass.  Is a small Black-Hole ^C-R a more likely internal mechanism to reliably power such a minimal mass than the fusion reaction?  Could such a small-massed star have ever initiated the fusion reaction, on it’s own, even with substantial "external help" from a nearby supernova blast?

RELATED ITEM: Are brown dwarf stars too small to sustain fusion? (and/or to ever have initiated fusion in the first place?)  Apparently red dwarf stars, white dwarf stars and larger are considered "fusion-viable" for powering purposes, by conventional theory.

GALAXIES:

Why do galaxies outer arms hold together (without needing "more gravity")?  Perhaps there are electromagnetic reasons. Use known forces first to try to explain the differences, then invent some unknown "dark" forces with unmeasurable, undetectable results.  Much less trouble for the C-R theory scenario, bigger trouble, and yet another anomaly needed, for the Big Bang crew.

The attraction from gravity should fall off by the inverse-square-law from the massive central region, but most galaxy arms maintain an almost linear velocity-speed relationship when outer-arm stars orbit around their galaxy’s center.  Otherwise, all galaxies spirals should all be wound-up, continually twisting, scrunching and pinching, not simply be pinwheeled and spun. (More like mixing an egg by an eggbeater.)

The C-R theory suspects that the real reason galaxies don’t fly apart is that unsuspected electromagnetic interactions allow the stars to "hold-each-other’s hands" electromagnetically, so to speak.  Dark matter does not exist, and plays no part in the structure of the galaxy.  Gravity simply isn’t the only possible inverse-square force that helps to hold galaxies together. Search on Galaxy Electrons, PAMELA, ATIC, to find interesting new material on high-energy electrons found in some galaxy centers.

NEW THOUGHT: Why spend billion$ of dollar$ trying to find non-existent dark energy and dark matter, before ruling out the possible force contribution from the  OTHER 50% of the known inverse-square forces. (HINT: electromagnetic energy)

HINT: Here’s a simple test you can FAIL first, to rule this idea out.  Look at any galaxy through a polarized filter.  Rotate the filter either clockwise, or counter-clockwise, and as long as NO changes are seen, you can rule out electromagnetic energy (electricity and magnetism) as the cause of galaxies holding together.

Ask any galaxy why they still hold-together, and they may say: "Currently {pun intended}, I am inverse-square dancing.  See how I stay in shape as my spiral arms do-si-do electromagnetically".

Related New Quote : A C-R theory "exclusive" guide to not finding Dark Matter: The best way to not find what isn’t there is to not look for it in the first place.  You are then much more likely to succeed, rather than continually fail.

(Translation: Look for what IS there first, then afterward look for what isn’t there {dark energy and dark matter})

New PUNs: (S)pin the TALE on the Galaxy, or, They’re Twisting my (galaxy’s) arms

Are there hidden electromagnetic fields’ which contribute magnetic force from freed-up clouds-of-electrons?  These electrons would be released from Black-Holes ^C-R powering stars in galaxies.  Could this be the real reason galaxies arms hold together, or galaxy rotation-spin doesn’t spin-apart the structure?

Rather than needing additional "gravity" from dark energy or dark matter to hold-together, magnetism is a known force, and polarized light is seen virtually everywhere (especially in galaxies).  Is it "simply" magnetic fields that cause galaxies to hold together? 

Can I find links about the levels of polarized light in galaxies and articles suggesting enormous quantities of free-electrons in galaxies?

 

Use a Torque-Driver, or Tweaking your "NO’s!!!"

NEW THOUGHT (or speculation, as in, The C-R "SPIN"):  Could an additional reason that spinning galaxies hold-together and don’t fly apart (without having or needing any extra mass) be that each star is individually "torqued or tweaked" magnetically back into "formation", if or when it individually "strays out-of line?"  All of it’s neighbors would locally contribute forces to maintain or restore the formation.

HINT: (Think of geese naturally flying in a "V" formation.  Aeronautical engineers have found that all of the geese, including the lead flier, are mutually assisted, when they fly in this V formation, and their collective drag is minimized.) PUN: Or is that type-of new thinking just "way out of line"?

NOTE ALSO: The more any individual star moves, compared to the others, the more potential magnetic interaction would be expected.  Think of a flock of birds, or a school of fish, maintaining an internal order, without any external influence or gudiance.  Do stars in a galaxy’s arms behave likewise [flock], but without thinking?  NEW PUN: Have you "herd" that idea?

Is there evidence of excess electron clouds or effects (anywhere beyond our sun’s photosphere)?  I’d expect some all around, everywhere.  I saw some claims of electrons in central galaxies.  Check PAMELA, ATIC (Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter), HEAT (High Energy Antimatter Telescope).  Current science is baffled by the quantity and energy of free electrons with very high energies which have been found in some galaxies.

Can I restore common sense and human-friendly-reasoning using the C-R theory?

Using situation-based reasoning or understanding (not predominantly equation-based) is another new-key to the C-R theory’s progress.  Nature uses same type-of ideas over and over.  Equations are good, but at best, they only represent idealized, simplified solutions.  Over-reliance on simple equations can (and in the past, often has), led scientists astray.  By understanding How nature works, one might get new insights into how similar systems might be working elsewhere in this universe.  That is part of the approach the C-R theory has taken.

The C-R theory says there is no overall significance attributed to the very minor differences from WMAP explorer and anisotropy, in millionths of a degree increments.  Exaggerated differences are non-significant and not important.  The C-R theory doesn’t need something there to be "significant."  ADVANTAGE: C-R

Look for "excess electrons" as Nature’s guide to detecting a feeding Black-Hole ^C-R or it’s activity, {dining evidence}. (If not eating, a C-R brand Black-Hole ^C-R emits no radiation.)  If you find ANY excess or freed-up electrons IN ABUNDANCE, that should be a dead giveaway that there is an actively-feeding Black-Hole ^C-R in the vicinity.  CLAIM: That includes our sun’s photosphere.

From 2008 and 2009, there is much discussion about high energy electrons found in central galaxies.  Some of the experiments expect that both electrons and positrons are mixed, and that is what is being detected, since they cannot imagine any process that would concentrate (or free) pure electrons.  The C-R theory suspects that when these particles are evaluated properly, there will be few if any positrons found, and most of the galactic-core electrons will be regular, run-of-the-mill electrons.  The difference is, the C-R theory has a proposed mechanism that DOES actively separate and free electrons, called a Black-Hole ^C-R!!!  Every Black-Hole ^C-R eating matter should be freeing-up electrons, as the protons and proton-neutron nuclei are consumed, confined, inactivated, stored-up, insulated, and isolated in a Neutral Zone ^C-R.

"Cool" your enthusiasm for the Big Bang start, but not the 2.7K background noise over time!!

The C-R theory expects that the 2.7K background radiation is not red shifting with time, and does not cool-down over time. (an extremely-long-term measurement will be needed to verify that.)  It may need tens-of-millions-of years to prove it, or to "not observe the 2.7K" changing with time.  What is the shortest time-period over which we could accurately determine the 2.7K’s value was non-changing as the Big Bang expected? 

The C-R theory also says that the 2.7K we observe is not connected in any way with the Big Bang!  It’s presence or existence in the background does not prove or demonstrate that the Big Bang occurred.  It is simply an artifact of ongoing "recycling" processes from the everyday operation of the universe.

Why gravity "is felt" or expressed outside a Black-Hole ^C-R, but heat and light (and electrical charge are not).  Only the C-R theory has a good, simple, practical idea why.

NO "NEW LIGHT" ON THIS TOPIC:

Photons do not change their value in a gravitational field (the measurer’s reference-frame/energy changes, along with their equipment).  This will need a half-page explanation-discussion, at least. (or hyperlink to internal C-R theory ___ )

Drake Equation: (don’t duck this opportunity to write it down) [but make it funny, so the readers quack-up]

The C-R theory could provide a new take on the Drake equation (The NASA equation from the early space age, for calculating or estimating the probability of their finding intelligent life in this universe) (Since the C-R theory supplies infinite time, this may give a much higher but finite number of worlds.   Should I move this elsewhere, but it is notable for the C-R theory difference added by an infinitely-old universe.  That must increase the potential numbers by a very large amount.

Mass Changes Value:

Only the C-R Theory theorizes that the "energy-value" of a 1 Kg mass changes with position in this universe, decreasing linearly in value as measured from the center.  It is not "constant" in value or isotropic, i.e., the same everywhere. {This is an expectation, not a measurement?} It has real significance to the current international mass-standard originally based on Paris France, 1 Kg mass.  They did not take that energy-difference-bias into consideration when they defined a standard mass based on an equivalent-energy value.  That also gives the overall universe incredible stability, it is not a fragile "house-of-cards" waiting for the slightest disturbance to collapse it.  See C-R section __  show diagram or link to one

This may be a unique idea of- or expectation-from the C-R theory.  No-one else has caught-on to it yet.  That’s why it needs a good explanation to show why I think it is so.

It may be 50 years before the majority "learns" of this new idea, or connects-the-dots.

*may already be in blog #1-- 101.  New item to consider (not observation)  Is there any connection between the smaller scale structure of the small particles creating Saturn’s rings, and the electrostatic charge?  This charge would keep the rings particles dispersed, prevent gravitational bunching or clumping, and assist in avoiding a collapse.  Is there any spectroscopic evidence, or NASA data suggesting any excess of accumulated electrical charge?  This simple addition might help stabilize the ring structure and keep rings stable much longer.

Check-off List:

Almost every month, new items related to those already included in the previous blog’s list are mentioned and discovered.  This author suspects the C-R compatible process is involved or suggested.  I would suggest that the home-readers keep a scorecard (show an example on 3 x 5 card).  Check off each new item discovered.  I would welcome each reader’s independent evaluation of the C-R theory ideas.

The C-R Theory does not need any of the troublesome listed items below:

Not Needed Items : (The C-R theory doesn’t need the contributions from any of these following items that give standard theories difficulties, at all.)

1. No hyperinflation is needed.  Check one point up for the C-R theory

2. No starting cause of a Big Bang is needed.  Check another one up for the C-R theory

3. No solution to Omega problem needed. (Why the universe appears almost filled with enough mass to "close-off" this universe.)  {The Real Answer is: Because the universe is totally filled-up, and closed-off, it always has been, and it always will be.  That is the BEST reason that our universe "ALMOST" appears to be so.}  Check off another one for the C-R theory.

4. No trouble with why every direction appears so similar when viewed from earth.  As a "closed-universe", the entire contents inside of our universe have been thermally equalized since forever-ago, in every direction.  Check-off another one for the C-R theory

5. No source of dark-energy is needed for accelerating the acceleration, or even acceleration. Our universe appears increasingly red -shifted at a distance from a simpler explanation.  Check one again.

6. No frame dragging (Is this an includable item for the list?)  NASA results should be announced later this year.  Is this a prediction, or a known observation?  Include in part 2 of the blog.

7. No Hawking radiation. (Is this an observation, or just an expectation?)  The environment just outside a Black-Hole ^C-R may have many types of energy being released, but none from Hawking radiation.  Can that be measured, or seen or differentiated? (or is it just suspected by C-R?) See thought experiment __

8. Black- Holes ^{C - R} should not be seen eating other Black- Holes ^{C - R} .  Both of their "inside-regions" are already at minimumgravitationalenergy, which should not be further "lowerable" by consuming another Black-Hole ^C-R (see #__)  Since an "eating" Black-Hole ^C-R can’t lower another Black-Hole’s ^C-R gravitational energy any more than the "zero" it already is, eating one is of no value, and no energy gain.

(Hint: Can an ice cube already at absolute zero cool off another ice cube at absolute zero?  No!!  Both are already at their lowest energy levels attainable.)

---

Addendum, Dec. 20, 2009   I would like to take this brief opportunity to "mourn" the passing of our first web-site, http://www.geocities.com/recycling_universe .  It served the Comedy-Recycling Theory faithfully for many years before its demise in late 2009.  It will be dearly missed.  It is survived by our newer web-site here at http://www.cr-theory.org 

Jerry Reynard, Author and C-R Theory Advocate

IS there any connection between the C-R theory type processes and Some or All of these Known Phenomenon listed below?

(Do any or all of these items hint that at least some parts of the C-R theory are Right?)  Can the C-R theory make a real contribution to understanding the operation of our real world, just as it is seen?

I would like to list some of the recognized items that are known-about, which may help to demonstrate a possible connection or link to the C-R theory.  It is conceivable that some of these are not connected in any way, but that is why I want to list many to give you, the home reader, some ideas of where the C-R theory may help-out our common understanding, in recognizing some common threads not seen as relevant (or interlinked) by mainstream science.  I intentionally left the list LARGE, both to be noticed, and to be overwhelming in it’s claims for C-R theory’s relevance.  I took out other items, like speculations and some predictions, and saved them for the next part (continuation) of this blog.  Part II can contribute even more items I’ve noticed (but not known phenomena) to the C-R theory’s claims.

I have divided the below-listed items into sections, grouped by: Earth, Sun (and vicinity), Space, Black-Holes ^C-R, supernova, and an end section, followed by some comments.  More will follow next week, including more ideas to tie-in the items listed below, and list why they are relevant to the C-R theory.

Statement: A brief, basic scenario for the C-R theory’s suggested pathway: –

A Black-Hole ^C-R at the center of our sun eats protons, and frees-up electrons outside the Black-Hole ^C-R, to make the sun’s energy, instead of fusion. 

This process is much more efficient (possibly 80-150 times the energy released the same amount of matter) and also allows many of the below items to be understood differently.  (That doesn’t prove it, but gives a demonstration of the practicality of the process, and does simplify our understanding of what is going-on.

(--and our sun is probably not alone, star-wise, but will be joined by countless quadrillions or more stars) 

This basic CAUSE mechanism changes the C-R theory’s expectations, and superimposes a "cause-effect" framework over many of the below items in the next few sections.

Earth (and vicinity) ITEMS: (grouped below)

Earth-1.   One of the most interesting items I found about 5 years ago was something I’d looked-for for a long time, (over 25 years) and finally found out that it was "known-about" all along, but not well publicized.  On our sun’s photosphere, virtually ALL of the hydrogen atoms there have 2 electrons!!!  This is fairly outrageous, since, on earth, when we heat-up a gas to 6,000 degrees C (or almost 10,000° F) the gas usually LOSES it’s electron(s), and ionizes positively. (Just like a neon sign)

            The only way this might make good sense of this situation is if there is a large, local source of excess negative charges (electrons) in abundance.  That situation is what the C-R theory claims might-well be the case. {see earlier blogs for the reasons why}

Earth-2.   If E-1 above is the case: There may well be a very slight modulation of the sunspot activity by the collective orbits of the planets ("The Jupiter Effect").  Such a wimpy force as gravity should have absolutely no effect upon the rate of thermonuclear fusion, if that is causing our sun’s power output.  If a small Black-Hole ^C-R provided our sun’s power (extracting E=mc² type energy from hydrogen at 25-50% efficiency, vs. 0.7% for fusion), the surrounding "cloud" of hydrogen and helium could be affected by contributions from some planets, with their sleight gravitational-sloshing-around.  NOTE: The authors of the book The Jupiter Effect did repudiate the link, in a follow-up book, because no possible causative mechanism was known.

Earth-3.   By the C-R theory, at the center of the sun, excess electrons are freed-up after the protons (and some proton-neutron combinations) were "devoured" by the Black-Hole ^C-R.  This might well allow those electrons to jointly collimate (or bunch together) to flee the vicinity quickly, and they would collectively emerge through the sun’s surface in flowing-spurting "streams".  The emerging electrons create those loops, whorls, arches, and enormous magnetic fields we see as sunspots.*(find values if possible)  Such phenomenon are already well-known, but now, the C-R theory suggests the internal causal mechanism for why it behaves this way?

Earth-4.    Birkeland currents (folded currents) of at least 1,000,000 Amps (at 6.02 x 10²³ electrons per amp each second) have been measured in an aurora on earth.  UNWRITTEN: Implies doubled amounts of currents, if auroras are active in both hemispheres simultaneously.

Earth-5.    NASA has measured instances of a current of 5,000,000 Amps between Jupiter and Io, and a voltage of 400,000 volts across Io.  That’s a pretty good trick for an "electrically neutral universe, huh?"  Those last 2 items are just what we know-of from within our solar system.  www.nasm.si.edu/ceps/etp/jupiter/jupmag.html 

 How many more events like these occur in other star’s systems, too?

HINT: Multiply out the full number of electrical charges, and list that number, even more impressive (per each second). Up to 5,000,000 x 6.02 x 10²³ electrons every second.

Earth-6.   Earth’s thunder-storms generate tremendous lightning currents (indicating some type of electrical activity on a regular, continual basis). **(Jerry- get statistics, quantities, numbers, averages, and add these in)  Find #’s on a daily, hourly basis.  Find the average number of thunderstorms going on continuously.

Earth-7:    Simply walk across a dry carpet indoors on a winter’s day, and build-up a static charge of 3,500 volts, when you encounter a doorknob.  Why does this happen so easily?  Maybe electrical charges are much more abundant than allowed-for in standard scenario? 

Earth-8.   Biological organisms (especially people) feel good in the presence of excess negative ions (like, right after a summer rainstorm when the air smells so fresh).  This IMPLIES this sense has been around a very long time if human beings have a built-in coping mechanism to deal with it or to enjoy it.

Earth- 9.   Upper atmosphere sprites, imps, are relatively new unknown charge events.  These items were all found occurring above thunderstorms, and only uncovered recently, not fully known-about.  (They are all very compatible with a C-R type process)   Are there new insights or new items to consider?  No cause mechanism known or expected by conventional theories.

Earth-10.   Earth having 400,000 excess Coulombs, recharged at 1,200-1,800 amps continuously. (As measured by von Helmholz around 1803)  Has this charge been there all along?  Why is it not noted more often?  NOTE: Check ham radio sites too, for ionization ideas.  They may note similar phenomenon more often than anyone else.

Earth-11.  People get headaches when they are exposed to excess positive ions (think of a violent, nearby supernova release).  They might well go indoors and go to bed, or not stay outdoors as long.  This might be a possible protective mechanism from excessive exposure to harmful supernova bursts, causing one to go in, and go to bed (safe in their "cave"), and stay out of the deadly cosmic-ray shower outside.

Earth-12.  Bees can sense the excess electrical charges on flowers.  Flowers which have been recently visited by other bees are not as excessively charged as unvisited flowers.  Some flowers build-up a charge over time.  This also implies that this has been around for millions of years, if bees are adapted to it.

* Found  a related article, that some plant’s leaves can reach 120 volts electrical potential (4 types of plants were specified)

Earth-13.  Is there any more significance to the known discontinuity at the earth’s Core Mantle Boundary?  There could be a gravitational discontinuity there, too.  There is also a difference there between the S & P type of wave couple-through? (Find name of discontinuity {Check: The discontinuity is named for Beno Gutenberg!})   Only C-R suggests a gravitational difference originating there, too.  See __ in the C-R theory.

Earth-14.  Time runs faster at Earth’s center than on the surface.  Can I prove it, demonstrate it, show someone else noticing it?  Is there any practical way to test it, without going there?  Ping it?  Would a radar or sonar pulse directed there reveal-detect anything from the surface, here?  Is there an article by others suggesting the amount?

NOTE: Most theories suppose time runs slower at earth’s center, from Newtonian understanding.  A clear difference.  C-R understands the situation, is not referencing other-people’s expectations.  The C-R theory says maximum bending (as curvature) will be the maximum gravity spot, or the Core Mantle Boundary.  Curvature will be minimum at the earth’s center, therefore, the curvature there (and time slowdown too) will be minimum.  The curvature MUST be less than on earth’s surface.

Earth-15.  Extra corrosion in Alaska pipeline from Auroral currents (way beyond the engineers initial expectations)  Especially concentrated in the polar regions.  Not originally anticipated when pipeline was built.

Earth-16.  Aurora Borealis (and Australis) colors represent ionized gasses (nitrogen, oxygen,…)

Earth-17.  Comet’s tail (rapid change is visible in real time)  Can be seen from the earth as evidence of extremely rapid changes in electrical (ionic) activity from the solar wind and magnetic fields.  This changes the position of the tail, and the modulation, a very quick response, changes visibly as the tail shifts, flinchs, whips-around, and changes it’s  position almost instantly.

Earth-18.  The space shuttle has been found to be glowing green (from ionized oxygen atoms-ions)  Something is ionizing those atoms.  It is not just the energy contribution from the orbital impact speed making the visible glow.

Earth-19.  Space shuttle tether melt-thru. (NOTE: A space-tether melting also happened on the Russian shuttle’s tether experiment, too)  {Overload of 3500 volts @ at least 1 amp at the shuttle’s metal base}  NASA blamed "a defect in manufacturing of the cable’s insulation" (a pin-prick sized air-bubble or hole) {They never considered that there was "just way too much electrical energy available for any tether to handle."} [The C-R theory suspects that there might be an especially large current surge when crossing from  the day to night side and back again while orbiting the planet.

(Find a link)

Earth- 20.  The C-R theory claims that the "time-rate" changes with the strength (or intensity) of the gravitational field (bending).  Already "known" but not believed or accepted.  Only the C-R theory truly appreciates the significance, and incorporates the idea into the "How" of how gravity works.

NOTE: C-R may be unique in understanding-predicting the least (or slowest) time-rate occurs at CMB on earth, where the bending, warping, or squeezing from curvature is MAXIMUM.

Moon:

Moon-1.  Maximum Gravity (as in curvature) is already at the moon’s surface, and the curvature will decrease with depth towards the moon’s center.  Will it be noticed, by experimental result, within the next 20 years, during any prolonged human visit to the moon? (and by astronauts from what country(s)?)  NOTE: The Apollo astronauts had great trouble with the moon-dust getting into seals, gaskets, and other dust-sensitive areas.  Now, I understand that the gravity on the moon is already MAXIMUM at the surface.  That means that the moon-dust will not easily be pulled-off by gravity.  Just the van der waals forces (like the static electricity that holds-up a sweater-rubbed balloon, to allow it to cling to a wall) would dominate.

SUN related ITEMS: (grouped below)

Sun- 1.  The solar wind accelerates away after it leaves the sun’s vicinity.  That could imply or suggest that there is an excess of electrical charges (electrons), self-repelling.  (If extra-electrons are not specifically looked for, it would be like taking a population census while playing keep-away tag when you’re it, but you don’t know that you are it, but the population being surveyed does.  Your count may be under-represented and have a hidden bias.)

Sun-2.  The 11 year solar-sunspot cycles, are similar to the period of Jupiter’s orbit around the sun. They may indeed be connected.  See item E-2

Sun-3.  Auroral activities (like auroral rings) have been observed on earth, Venus*(*on the night-side only), Saturn^ (^, two different types of aurorae have been found on Saturn;  An ultraviolet aurora, and also an infrared aurora, at two distinct locations.  They are believed to be caused by two different mechanisms.), Uranus, Neptune, and Jupiter.  Just recently, a weak aurora has also been found on Mars, too. {Titan and Triton too?}  Most solar-system atmospheres have auroras. (I have not seen anything on Mercury, but the C-R theory would not be surprised if Mercury had some-type of aurora, too.)

Sun-4.  Scarcity (or shortfall) of neutrinos measured as coming from our sun.  At least 2/3 shortfall to expectations, but some manipulations of "reality" are used to justify it.  Current theory suggests the neutrinos undergo a "neutrino-oscillation", switching or converting between the neutrino-types that we can detect, and those we can’t detect.   Wouldn’t it just be easier to guess that all of the expected neutrinos just weren’t there, in the first place?

Sun-5.  Does the abundant electrical charge the C-R theory suspects is coming from the sun contribute-to, enhance, maintain, or help stabilize Saturn’s ring structure?  Are there any unanticipated items to look for or suspect?  Would that extra-charge help-to stabilize and maintain the ring structure, separate individual pieces, and space-them-out.  Wrangle-them, but not clump them, so to speak.  Is there any "hidden" evidence in the known spectrum data, but not yet looked-for?  Are there any radio spectrum measurements (known or unknown but available?)  Check the literature.  Radio-ionization (music or sounds?)

Solar-sys-1.  Sulphur volcanoes on Io, water-steam volcanoes on Enceladus, two nitrogen spouting volcanoes on Triton, and volcanic features found on Triton, (Neptune’s moon)?

Some volcanic features have been found on almost all solid surfaces within the solar system.  This implies that something may be heating even smaller bodies, and giving them energy to melt.

Sun-6.  Predict charge release magnitude for our sun. (need a calculation and a number-range) not an observation, per se, but could be matched to item #__  Show a ballpark figure, see if number is reasonable?  Could include up to 30 x 30 earth-diameters of  volume-sweep from earth’s wide magnetic field clearing-out the electrons from nearby space..

Sun-7.  A thunderstorm on Saturn has been observed to continue for at least 7 ½ months, with the storm covering at least 3,000 km in diameter.  Some radio waves were 10,000 times stronger than similar-type radio waves emitted from earth’s thunderstorms.

SPACE related ITEMS (grouped below):

Space-1.  Enormous amounts of polarized light (and other electromagnetic radiation, covering all bands from radio, microwave, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, x-rays, and gamma rays) have been found just about everywhere.  This indicates the presence of enormous electrical or magnetic fields. (everywhere in every direction)  SOMETHING must be polarizing the light, and guess WHAT does?  Answer: Very high electrical currents, and/or high levels of magnetic fields. {They can’t do it if they’re not there.}

Space- 2.   There are four known stellar objects, stars changing their class (on the H-R {Herzsprung-Russell) diagram) in intervals shorter than human lifetimes.  These events are supposed to take millions of years according to standard thinking about fusion, but 4 stars have changed several characteristics noticeably within human lifetimes.

V4334 SGR (in Sagittarius), also known as Sakurai’s Object. (First observed Feb. 20, 1996)

V605 Aquilae, first observed in 1919

V 838 Mon (Monoceros)

FG Sagittae has been observed over 100 years, and changed it’s color from B type to K2lb.  It’s temperature has dropped every year by 250 K.  It’s magnitude changed from 13.7 to 9.1, later down to 16, and back-up to 15 by Oct. 1998.

I would like to thank the Electrical Universe web-site {link, too} for noticing the observations.  If these 4 stars can change their parameters this quickly, could our ideas about what type-of energy drives them be at least partially wrong?

Space-3.  Interstellar chemicals and radicals.  If high-energy currents are present, that changes the possibilities in space for such interactions.  Not just "your mother’s" old, cold, dark, dull, boring, outer space anymore.  Complex organic chemicals and molecules are found in abundance.

Space-4.  Interstellar ions.  Same idea as above, but ionized radicals, too.  Probably not freed by the energy from the 2.7K background radiation, but do capture energy from cosmic rays zipping everywhere.

(Can I find a list of known interstellar ions?)

Space-5.   Helium compounds in space.  Something has to provide the energy or incentive for helium, a normally-inert element on earth, to combine and hook-up with interstellar radicals, or to form chemical compounds.  Helium compounds are more likely if there is a high level of abundant energy occasionally available from cosmic rays. (probably not from the 2.7K background energy)

Space-6.   Low hydrogen stars (Much less hydrogen in their spectrum than science expects to see).   These stars are thought to be "too young" to be depleted of hydrogen this early in their lifetimes, by standard theory.  Maybe the standard H-R diagram isn’t as correct as it is supposed to be?

Space-7.   Excessive hydrogen stars (These stars have much more hydrogen (and less heavy metals) than they should have, considering how old they are supposed to be.)   Maybe the H-R diagram is wrong?

Space-8.   Complex structures of "young" galaxies and nebulas.  Some "young" galaxies, supposedly under 1 billion years old, had fully developed, complex "structure" billions of years ago.  (But that would not be a problem for an infinitely old universe, would it?)

Space-9.   Lack of modulation of the temperature of the 2.7K "background" radiation by the large concentrations of mass detected. (This mass concentration should have modulated the background, or "pulled-on" the radiation inward, to modulate the signal and change or affect it’s temperature.)  This would not be a problem if the 2.7 K is more of an innocent bystander, just minding it’s own business, and not left-over radiation from the beginning of the Big Bang.  Since the 2.7K is continually being replenished and re-created, it is never pulled-in-on by the vast accumulations of mass detected in our universe, and it is never modulated by large masses accumulated closer-in, towards the center.  The C-R theory also maintains that the radiation naturally smooths-out itself, as it is driven by positive-positive ion self repulsion.

Space-10.   Our universe is mostly matter.  (It should not have been created that way, from nothing, then balanced-out that soon)  If our universe was ALWAYS that way, then there is less of an intellectual challenge. Notice, this is not a problem if our universe has ALWAYS been that way, but it’s a much bigger problem if all matter emerged from nothing.  If it was created equally, but survived unequally with almost all antimatter disappearing, that suggests real difficulties.  This is still achieved after the initial spontaneous creation of particles and anti-particles from nothing.

Space-11.   Very dense, large stars, with abundant complex metals have been found in supposedly very young star clusters or regions.  Again, not a problem for an infinitely old universe, but big trouble for something happening "overnight", in the cosmic timescale.  (Find regions, names, designations)

Space-12.   Why is there so much ionized hydrogen (nearer the outer edges of the visible universe)? Up to 20% of the universe’s hydrogen we know-of is ionized.  The C-R theory has a pretty reliable source mechanism, always ongoing, always operating.  Near the outer edges, too?

Space-13.   Masers in space. (A microwave analog to the optical Laser) (needs many "primed or excited ions" throughout whole regions of space to allow microwave amplification to take place)  Directional beams of microwaves, I believe were detected from OH radicals. (hydroxyl ions)   Speculation on Masers allowing creation of directional beams of microwave energy with amplification.  Needs a large available population of energetically excited atoms in order to work.  Two or three different frequencies (or resonance-modes). (1720 Mhz was one of the frequencies.)

            This phenomenon needs energized ions, and cannot amplify anything with all ions sitting in their ground-energy state.  This suggests abundant energy, and activated ions.

            Are other masers (driven by other excited ions) also known-about?

Space-14.   The Great Attractor (the most blueshifted place or spot in the universe)  Extensively dealt with in an earlier blog, very significant to the C-R theory.

Earlier blog link ___

Space-15.   No backrush has been detected coming from behind the Great Attractor, indicating NO actual infalling.

Space-16.   Space is NOT isotropic, or the same in all directions. (Just looking-around in our universe, at the night sky tells us so.)  Objects way-out-there are definitely NOT the same as similar objects closer-in, nearby to earth, time-wise.  Just looking at space objectively shows exactly that.  The further-out you go, the less like earth objects are, time-wise, and the slower they "clock", or the more they appear redshifted.

Space-17.   Almost ALL of the observed red-shift in distant objects is not a Doppler shift, but a gravitationally caused shift.  (The Great Attractor gives us that answer.)  This implies our universe is not expanding at all, and not expanding at an increasing rate, either.

Space-18.   Look for any electrical, high-current, or magnetically caused event.  This demonstrates a much higher electrical imbalance or current-flow than standard theories expect.  (Enormous regions displaying polarized light, in every direction, also indicates so.)

Black-Hole ^C-R related ITEMS (grouped below):

BH-1.  Many Black-Holes ^C-R can exist within one (inside-of-a) Black-Hole ^C-R.  No real upper limit (except the ultimate density) to the number possible.  A C-R theory exclusive idea.

BH-2.  What causes the "jets" of highly concentrated, very directional, near-light-speed velocities, jetting away from Black-Holes ^C-R?  HINT: Think of collimated, bunched electrons, all exiting near the speed-of-light.  Collectively, their combined magnetic fields bunch them to punch-them out away from the Black-Hole ^C-R.

NOTE: Arnold Gulko’s article in Infinite Energy Magazine, issue __, noted and asked: what causes jets to flee at nearly speed-of-light after being pulled in by seemingly overwhelming force?  (Freed electrons would nicely do the trick)  The C-R theory has a very simple answer. See section __

BH-3.  Why 10,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R have been found orbiting our galaxy’s central Black-Hole ^C-R?  Almost no-one else is remarking on this.  It should be seen as a big anomaly that these 10,000 are still orbiting around and have not all been eaten-up over time, by the central supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R. (Why have no other theories pounced upon this observation?)  The C-R theory thinks it knows why.

BH-4.  No mini-Black-Hole ^C-R evaporation (or explosion when disappearing)  Not viable in the C-R theory scenario.  If evidence of such a mini-Black-Hole ^C-R explosion is found, then the C-R theory is wrong.  C-R theory uses only 2-part Black-Holes ^C-R exclusively.  This isolates the energy-input part from the central, inner part, which provides complete stability.  See section __ in the C-R theory.

{Sub-item: We face absolutely NO danger from the LHC over in Europe creating mini-Black-Holes ^C-R.)

BH-5.  Recently, there was an electron-shadow measured recently from a Black-Hole ^C-R approximately 3 billion years old.  This may indicate some "connection" between a Black-Hole ^C-R and excess electrons available in the vicinity.  See article in October 2009 Astronomy magazine, short article, page ___

NOVA, SUPERNOVA and increasing scale related ITEMS (below):

SN-0.  Coronal Mass Ejections (CME) from our sun. (is it positive ionization, release of concentrated protons?)  the smallest "chunk" of the nova, supernova, … chain of events. (a precursor to a full nova?) (not listed as a "full" argument)

SN-1.  There are multiple positively-ionized atoms present in supernova remnants. Here is a link to a soft-X-ray source including ions 5+ and higher only. Notice, this supernova is at least 3,000 years old, and STILL includes this extensive list of multiple-positive ions, from the chart on page #3  One site listed 156 known different ions, many with multiple-positive ionizations.  Some of these ions were still active 11,000 years after the original supernova event took place.  That suggests a staying-power not anticipated by standard theories.

Link-in pdf from soft X-ray ion list from the 3000 year-old SNR N132D, featuring ions +5 and higher.

SN-2.  Note the incredible damage done to the experimental apparatus caused by the LHC’s "confined-proton release" event. (HINT: The C-R theory says this release IS a guide to up-close supernova events.)  What to look for, evidence-wise, result-wise.  NOTE: This also suggests a possible link to CME-caused damages on earth to electrical systems here.  The same type mechanism is involved, but on an even larger scale.

SN-3.  Scale-up, sunspots*, CME, nova, supernova, Seyfert galaxy, active galaxy, quasar, GRB.  All are increasing magnitude of the same-type of event, all* work from the same plan, by the same cause mechanism. (*almost all?) *sunspots may not be same-type.

SN-4.  Dust-free supernova aftermath measured last year.  Not a problem for the C-R theory, if proton-proton repulsion swept clean the entire neighborhood.  Standard theory expected a very dusty remnant to be left behind. See our video segment.

SN-5.  Charged-particle release events   Each event is independently "self-smoothing" on a large scale.  The C-R theory says these events (smoothed-out over time) are the true source of the 2.7 K background radiation we see.  There is no connection whatsoever to a big bang.

No overall coordination is needed to achieve the current, very smooth result.  An advantage of system-design.  Scale-up these events from a nova, supernova, Seyfert Galaxy, Active galaxy, quasar, and GRB (gamma ray burst).

(all these events are in the same family, increasing in scale and magnitude, from item ___)

SN-6.  Cosmic rays (high energy positive charges) (covered in other blogs earlier) NOTE: A new article claims that some cosmic rays are also composed-of an ionized  nucleus of various heavy metals, as an ion, too, and not just single protons.

SN-7.  One cosmic ray last year was measured-as being worth at least 300 quintillion electron-volts.  That number could be very reasonable, by the C-R theory scenario, but not by standard theories.  See our video segment. LINK

SN-8.  An observed neutrino burst coinciding with the start of a supernova burst in 1987.  That is claimed by standard theories as proof of the rapid thermonuclear fusion, freeing neutrinos.  The C-R theory says, neutrinos trapped over millions or billions of years are suddenly freed with other supernova contents (concentrated protons and neutrons).  Both explanations might be correct, but neither explanation can be excluded from the observations.

SN-9.  The prolonged glow from a supernova (and the amount of excess positive ionization) after 450 years, it still has many multiple-positive ionizations (see #__ too)

SN-10.  Supernovae continue to expand long after they should have cooled-down by expansion.  One site listed some types-of ions still accelerating after 11,000 years after the supernova event started.

SN-11.  Fe²³⁺ and other multi-positive ions present in supernova remnants and Seyfert galaxies hint at a much-greater role for multiple-positive ionization. Indicates high degree of multiple-positive ionization. (and/or a lack of at least 23 local electrons, to smooth-out the multi-positive ionizations.  Unless there are not enough "single hydrogen atom" electrons around to surrender their "one" to some heavy-metal’s absence of 5, 6, or higher numbers.)  Present in many, (ALL?) supernova remnants?  NOTE: (I read that there were 156 different ions reported in some supernova remnants.  This is not uncommon, and should be used as a guide, to suggest positive ions play a much bigger role in explaining the actions of supernovae than standard theory ever dreamed.)  Here is a link to a soft-X-ray source including ions 5+ and higher only. Notice, this supernova is at least 3,000 years old, and STILL includes this extensive list of multiple-positive ions, from the chart on page #3

SN-12.  Look for excess positive ions to be THE POWERING SOURCE of supernova expansion, and the driving force. (These ions were not just created in the aftermath, but were the initial, true, original CAUSE, driving the explosive expansion.)  That gives these ions a much greater STAYING power over a prolonged period of time than heat-generated ions, (generated by radiation as a by-product of the original explosion).  That also explains why those ions just don’t "appropriate" the electrons from much weaker, single hydrogen atoms.  There are simply not enough electrons available to compensate for the sudden release into the environment of massive quantities of the proton-ions, freed-up in the supernova.

SN-13.  Cosmic rays coming from all directions, not just some few specific local regions.  Indicates that the sources are all over the sky, in every direction.

The END {and/or conclusion} section ITEMS (below):

End-1.   Irony: The larger our universe is, the less the overall density needs to be to achieve full closure. {become the inside of a Black-Hole ^C-R}  As long as the sum of the mass is large enough to "close-off" the universe everywhere at the outer edges, that is all that counts.

End-2.  Farthest-off objects are only ageing (in real time) at a few percent of earth’s time-rate.  Their time-rate decreases with increasing distance from the center (which is inside of us on earth in this universe). (Each time-rate varies with the distance from the center, by location.)

This concept is unique to C-R theory; everyone else expects their time is almost equal to ours, after correction for speeding away.  This is also why the Hubble constant isn’t really appropriate, as a measure of increase.  It is an "illusion", and not a true constant. 

End-3.   No need for dark matter, and no dark energy. The C-R theory just doesn’t need them to explain our universe, as is.  Will be commented upon in later blogs.

End-4.  The C-R theory process offers a better fit to conservation-of-energy.  No need for continual violation.  A return to "science", just like it was practiced 200 years ago, way-back-when, "when: not violating conservation of energy" was considered BETTER science (or just good science), and more likely to be found true.

______________________________________________________________________

This concludes the observations section, where I have tried to remember some of the items I’ve read about in the last 30 years or so.  This blog is not intended to be a complete or extensive list, but it is at least representative of many items observed in the last 30 years which don’t fit-in well with a "Big Bang-derived" scenario.  These items don’t fit the mold or the standard theory’s expectations.  They don’t spring-out and say, Oh, I see why this would do that.

On the other hand, every one of these items is MORE understandable IF and only IF a "C-R theory-type" process is going on all around us.  In every case, the C-R theory provides a new pathway to see why these events occur like they do, how and why they are interlinked, and the phenomena noted suggest a connection to some aspects of the C-R theory, where a real difference would be expected.  If the connection is merely a figment of my imagination, then others at home will not notice this possibility, too.  If you, at home, do start to sense a connection, or you start to realize, "Maybe the C-R theory isn’t all made-up, and maybe it does offer a real positive contribution to linking-in ALL of these-type phenomena, and giving us some good insights into the processes going on everywhere around us."

In the next blog, I’ll add-in another list of speculations, questions, answers, and more, that will help to tie in the above list, and root the items into a common scenario or framework. {I would have added the list now, but the list just got way too long already for a simple blog.  I do intend to overwhelm the home readers with the abundance of these type phenomena, and a large list does that best!!}

I did not provide current links to many of these items above, as I’ve been aware of many of them for many years, and I don’t have written down the original place or article-source where I first noted the item.  Most of these items now are Google searchable, and will readily link-to many web sites that will cover each item from a non-C-R theory viewpoint.  I did try to provide a brief C-R theory spin, although not too extensive, as the list was already long.  I will try to provide more links at a later time, where home readers can check-out several helpful web sites where these items are mentioned.

My claim is that all the above items fit into a giant puzzle, where each small piece provides a partial glimpse of the whole-ongoing process.  Only the C-R theory attempts to link-in ALL of these items, and show WHY each one matters, how they are similar, and how each suggests that "something-like what the C-R theory suggests is going-on, is really going-on."  There are probably thousands of similar observations, each one seemingly insignificant, which can provide a picture of a universe brimming with electrical, ionic, magnetic, and "freed-up electric-charge" activity.  Such evidence abounds.

I would contend that our universe IS NOT electrically neutral overall, but that an enormous amount of electrical activity is going on all around us, and our solar system has many known instances where there is just too much electrical activity, too much current, too much high-energy interaction to regard our universe (and outer space) as electricallyneutral.

No other theory has such a simple causative mechanism. (The electrical universe web-sites claim some of the same electrical activity, but simply have the electrical charges coming from "somewhere else".)  Standard theory is oblivious to the electrical activity, and dismisses almost all of it as a coincidence or treats each phenomenon as an isolated anomaly.

I would hope to persuade some readers out there to simply look around, and notice all of the phenomenon linked to electrical activity, cosmic rays (or high energy positive charges), excess electrons, and polarized light.  Realize that all such activities indicate something is going on, and there probably is a good, simple explanation for it all.  The C-R theory is attempting to show you home readers a new way to look at these type events, and to integrate them all into a much bigger, more complete picture.

Please drop-in again soon, and I’ll try to provide the second part of this blog within the next week, where I link in further speculations, ask probing questions (with a C-R theory viewpoint expecting something close to what we do see), providing some theory, and suggesting why the C-R theory does now understand more of what is actually seen, and how it all fits-in to an overall plan, with an overall purpose, and how our universe is behaving as a finely-tuned system, with everything going-on as a normal, everyday activity.

If you don’t want to wait until then, please proceed over to the C-R theory (either version) and read as much as you can.  Many of the items mentioned here will be suggested from the descriptions provided, and from the scenarios covered.

Oct. 10, 2009, the date this blog was last modified.

_______________________________________________End the 1^st part-of this blog

Although I said a lot in my last blog, and elsewhere, about the C-R theory's unique outlook on a "new" experiment on gravity that anyone can do at home, I feel that the masses will ignore or disregard the experiment as not really "new" or "relevant", but just a play on the semantics, or a clever twist on our perception, and a "lie" as to its applicability.

Let me state that this is a fundamental new insight, and really "throws a monkey wrench" into the commonly held outlook. Yet another national magazine has included the "drop clear-through the earth" in 42 minutes scenario in another magazine article this month, and a certain host of Nova on PBS repeated the segment on jumping down into a hollowed shaft through the earth, again. In the cartooned scenario, he accelerated until he reached the center of the earth, then decelerated until he reached the top of the shaft on the other side of the earth.

At least one responder wrote in to YouTube that they couldn't take seriously any theory that didn't see gravity Newton's way, and they probably aren't alone. Let me re-describe the situation, as I understand it, and as I notice it, from a "different" perspective, and try to show why the "new" idea isn't nearly as stupid as conventional theory assumes.

My favorite "curvature analogy" is the orange juice squeezer, the old-fashioned kind, that has a lower half-ball, where the orange sits, and a hollowed-round cup, which sits over the orange, mounted to a metal lever (from the pre-plastic days). Usually I would "half" the orange, and just squeeze one half at a time. As one squeezed the (half) orange, the juice would flow-out, and collect in some container. At the start, the flow of juice was roughly proportional to the force exerted, but at the end, when all the juice had been squeezed-out, there was a point where nothing more would come-out.

This juice squeezer is really a very good analogy for the way that "gravitational curvature" squeezes energy from matter. In essence, we take some real potential energy (as in real-time), and warp matter (very slightly, on earth) to where it experiences less "real-time". You can put away your stopwatches, though, as the difference is way too small to detect. On earth, we lose approximately 1 part in 10¹⁶ per meter (for a drop), or gain as much, if lifted-up. The C-R theory contends that it is this incremental "time-loss" that EXACTLY equals the amount of kinetic energy gained by matter (as speed, from acceleration). NOTE: This "proposed-source" for the energy-exchange is extremely important, and if one does not notice this, one will be hopelessly mislead.

In the standard Newtonian formula, the (expected) acceleration is the almost same whether the acceleration is measured from above the earth's mass, heading downward, or dropping down a shaft towards the center of the earth. IMPORTANT: Newton never claimed to UNDERSTANDWHY matter did this, just that it could be summed-up (via an early version of calculus which he invented for this purpose). The C-R theory will yield the point that, from above the earth, gravity does work very close to the Newtonian formula, and nearly succeeds all tests one could try.

It is important to note that NO-ONE has ever tested how Newton's equations actually work for mass staged far UNDER the earth. There is NO valid experiment or test which has been performed to test or to verify Newton's equations from below earth's crust.

Even more important: Newton's standard formula is FLAWED, big time. That is because, the density of matter, on earth, INCREASES SUBSTANTIALLY with depth, by MORE THAN the inverse square dropoff expected in gravitational strength. The calculated values (expected, but never actually measured on-site) show that gravity should be approx 10.61 m/(sec)² at the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB), a sleight increase from the 9.81 m/(sec)² tested on earth's surface. (The value at the surface does vary by location, tides, angular displacement, position of the moon, the bulge at the equator vs. at the poles, and below-surface mass accumulations or variances, among other possible error sources.)

NOTE: In simple words, on earth, "gravitational curvature", or the strength of gravity, increases with depth, at least until the core-mantle boundary is reached. From there, the value drops off nearly linearly, to "zero" (or more correctly, minimum), at the center of the earth. {To be more nit-picky, the center of the earth-moon mass actually circles around the earth's exact center.} (Technically, as long as we have the moon around, the value at the center is never exactly zero, there.)

Now, to return to the juice-squeezer analogy. Where is it that a mass on earth is the most-curved (most squeezed)? Only at the Core Mantle Boundary. The curvature there is some 9% greater than the value at the surface of the earth, even though the depth is about half way to the center. Note: At the center, matter is much less curved than it would be even at earth's surface. That means, it's real-time (clocking) rate there is FASTER than ANYWHERE else on earth. That means, the mass there has GAINED energy if it can arrive there. The C-R theory contends that, one (i.e., YOU) would have to add energy, or come-up with additional energy, to "allow" any mass to "fall" to the center. NOTE: This is directly the opposite from Newtonian (formula's) expectations.

Even though Einstein came-up with the idea of curvature telling mass how to behave (or move), he MISSED the idea that CURVATURE superimposes a "preferred reference frame" over matter, in direct proportion to "how much that matter is squeezed". This means that the more curved spacetime is, the more it "squeezes" real energy from matter. This also means that, if you intellectually "throw-away" or "discard" the collective influence of mass (which Newton DID when he tracked gravity), YOU WILL get WRONG answers. (WHICH EXPERTS do, by the way, get wrong answers.)

When we did the experiment, and tossed a ball into lesser gravitational curvature, the ball always returned back into greater curvature, without fail. NOTE: In this experiment, the C-R theory maintains that we do actually simulate the behavior of a ball tossed into lesser curvature (whether UP or DOWN), from the Core Mantle Boundary. NOTE: In the experiment, the ball WAS consistent, and always returned from lesser curvature back into greater curvature. SCHOLARS NOTE: Nature has revealed her hand, and shown you what she WILL DO in this instance, whether or not you believe it.

Does it not start-to make THE MOST sense that curvature will cause the ball to fall to the least energy point? It should seem incredibly stupid that curvature would cause the ball to fall from minimum curvature (way above the surface of the earth), into greatest curvature, and then still be able force it back into minimum curvature again? That belief is inconsistent with either logic or the experiment. On the other hand, the ball could fall into greatest curvature, and remain there (or return after passing-through, if it had excess kinetic energy). THAT would be consistent with OUR experiment!!!

By NOT appreciating or recognizing the real contribution to "gravity" from curvature, mainstream science has either NOT LEARNED or NOT NOTICED an important new lesson. The sad part is, that the answer has been hiding in plain sight for many, many years, and has never been noticed (until the C-R theory came along).

The simple idea of curvature is not necessarily complicated, but appreciating it's influence is NEW. All that is needed is that matter responds to curvature, and the greater the curvature, the greater is matter's response. If that is recognized, then HOW can ANYONE believe that curvature will cause the ball to "fall" FROM MAXIMUM to minimum curvature? If you can SEE it that way: that a BALL "falls" only to MAXIMUM curvature, you will start to comprehend what the C-R theory has uncovered, and pointed-out something really new (and totally unexpected).

In short, Newton was partially right. Then Einstein was even more partially correct, but he still missed a major point. Now the C-R theory comes along and points out a better, more consistent way to envision the "workings" of gravity. Someday, someone better informed may find-out more of the flaws inherent in the C-R theory, and eliminate still more of them. If one can learn from everyone's past mistakes; that is better than holding-on to the wrong belief for the sake of consistency.

I do not expect people to embrace the C-R theory viewpoint overnight, and I can empathize with those who believe the other way (I used to be in their camp, so to speak.) If you choose to laugh at the C-R theory, it was designed for you to do so, and it is tolerant of differences. For now, I would be satisfied if more people would simply consider the C-R theory view, and acknowledge it, and leave some possible "wiggle-room" for their viewpoint to change at a later date.

It is no "accident" that gravity is the most poorly understood of the major forces. What I'm trying to do is show anyone who will listen or read it; where to look, what to look for, how to test it, what the differences will be, all the new advantages gained, and the new ideas that might help one to understand what is really going on in our universe. IF the C-R theory ideas are wrong, the errors should compound, and they will become plain over time. IF the ideas are right, then expect to learn new things, and find-out new ways to understand something so very basic that it has never before been noticed.

A simple Plea:

If someone out there just questions, why should I believe (or accept) the C-R theory, when "everyone out there" has already bought-off that nothing in our universe happens like the C-R theory says; I might say "Would a return to simple, understandable, common-sense-logical thinking, restoring conservation of energy back to it's former "glory" status, and a better fit to reality appeal to you? {To which, the majority still replies: "Not if we have to change our view (back) to the C-R theory way".}

What is really amazing is that normally "conservative" scientists, who greatly resist innovations to the status-quo, have so thoroughly jumped-aboard the "Big-Bang started", "accelerating-expanding" universe idea. {With no-known energy source to give the universe the "cart-blanche unlimited" increases in energy needed}, with no known reconciling or accountability, or "penny-pinching frugality" (from Conservation-of-energy) to reign-in our universe's getting bigger, faster, more filled-up, at an ever-expanding rate, "party-atmosphere" { The Big Bang started universe needs: Free energy, available all the time, at no cost to you.}

The C-R theory instead contends that: Our universe is fixed in size, fixed in energy content, infinitely old, still very dynamic, does recycle with 100% efficiency, looks exactly like the universe we actually see (right now), fits-in everywhere as the C-R theory expects, but behaves much differently than standard theory comprehends. Our universe is always EXACTLY filled with enough mass to EXACTLY close-off space (not a coincidence, just a continuation of ongoing reality, or a maintaining of the status quo). Conservation of energy is alwaysstrictly obeyed. {The Second Law of thermodynamics is continually "foiled" in it's attempt to run energy downhill for everything.} The Second Law is allowed it's supremacy on "normal-acting" matter inside Active Zones ^C-R, but is still limited by the overall design of this universe.

The interesting thing is: The C-R theory-type universe looks exactly like our universe does, it violates no known Laws (other than a "mere" technicality with the Second Law of Thermodynamics), it is simple to understand, and requires NO complex anomalies, no amazing coincidences, never needs "something from nothing", and uses simple re-understanding of reality to accomplish everything. (That should make it a better theory.)

Sadly, mainstream science is so intent on believing the Big Bang type scenario, that regardless how many convolutions are needed, or near-unbelievable anomalies are needed for that scenario to make sense, they refuse to give-it-up. Interestingly, by the C-R theory, science in the pre-1900's may have actually been closer to the real truth about almost all of our universe's basic properties (except for the huge overall size) than our "better informed" {but highly misguided} modern-day science in 2009.

NOTE: CERN over in Europe, the "parent" organization of the LHC, has sunk $10 Billion into building the LHC, specifically to "prove" the Big Bang scenario, and to gain new insights into our universe. IF that scenario is FALSE (as the C-R theory claims it IS), almost ALL of that money is wasted. We may find a few new sub-atomic particles or particle-resonance combinations, but there will be NO NEW fundamental understanding of how our universe works. (Because it JUST doesn't work that way.)

C-R says that our universe is closed-off, fixed in size, infinitely old, essentially unchanging (but still actively dynamic, in an everyday-activity sense), neither increasing nor decreasing in energy content or size, in short, a complete, working ecological system. Newly added, matter and energy are continually recycled in cataclysmic cycles (but with 100% efficiency), which renews and refreshes matter-energy within this "closed package".

ANALOGY: If you have a set of equations that predict that your favorite bowling ball will collapse into a singularity, instead of remaining perfectly stable from day-to-day, I would suggest you check your equations, and replace them with better ones. If those same equations predicted your bowling ball was expanding with expanding expansion, and continually gaining mass, quite possibly* they would again be in error.*(Does THAT situation sound familiar?) What the C-R theory says is that our universe is a completely closed-off system, the inside "Active Zone ^C-R" of a larger Black-Hole ^C-R, and already is designed for perfect stability.

Conventional theory, using the "old-obsolete" Newtonian ideas of gravity, cannot understand why such a "closed-off" stable system doesn't simply collapse. {They may require a dark-energy to exactly balance the gravitational attraction, or oscillate unstablely.} Nature has already "planned-ahead", and given-up on the collapse idea, and choose the "perfect stability" option instead. Only the C-R theory has a simple explanation WHY this option is really much more reasonable. It is a natural outcome from understanding HOW curvature causes (and automatically stabilizes the structures created-by) gravity. This concept SIMPLY cannot be understood NEWTONIANALLY. The Newtonian equations do not apply in this case, and will lead one to wrong conclusions if they are used. (That they do work well in most situations we are familiar with {above the earth's surface} is granted, but they will fail when the effect of curvature upon matter is sorely disregarded.)

Sorry for the "rant", but I do wish to try to get this simple point across. YOU need to understand the action of curvature upon matter to be able to understand the real behavior of gravity. Conventional science is heading for big-time embarrassment when this simple idea will be found to be correct. I am trying to gently point that out to anyone who will listen, and pay attention, and simply check the facts.

READER HELP DESIRED: If you know of an existing term or concept that you think the C-R theory should incorporate (or be aware-of), or that would help clarify the C-R theory ideas to readers and viewers, feel free to write-in to suggest that I incorporate those terms. I have tried to keep the terms simple, and limit the new terms to a very few ideas, but there may be limits to this. I will try to create videos and diagrams to explain some of the C-R theory ideas, and I do try to show where the real differences lie, and why they are important.

NEW TOPIC: Stick with ONE good one. The C-R theory suggests using and understanding ONE and only ONE universe (our dear home, too), and forget about trying to understand or solve equations for all of the 10⁵⁰⁰ competing (possible) alternate multiverses "science" is trying to pawn-off as necessary to understand what we have. The C-R theory DOES NOT need these "extra" universes to explain anything happening now, or any known phenomenon. Our universe may be much SIMPLER to understand, if you KNOW how to look at it. (If you don't, then nothing you observe makes too much sense now, or seems to fit into a logical pattern.)

If you have tried to understand "our competition" {i.e., the Big Bang} (and probably failed), PLEASE give the C-R theory a fair chance. Try to visualize the C-R theory's simple descriptions and processes, and give it a fair shot at explaining everything that we do see, almost everywhere. If that doesn't work for you, then reject it and try elsewhere, again.

In upcoming blogs, I am hoping to comment on at least 30-40 known phenomenon or observations which have a direct tie-in with KEY C-R theory concepts, but which mainstream science is simply baffled-by. If the C-R theory was right, I could imagine scoring a hit with 2-5 items in the real world, and feeling triumphant. With the C-R theory, I've got a huge list (and there are many other similar occurrences which I have not recorded individually) of items which feature connections (or tie-ins) that ONLY the C-R theory can appreciate, and say: "LOOK!!!, It's here in plain sight for anyone to see".

I am hoping that by the 30-40^th time, "Oh, it's just a coincidence", sayings; that maybe a few people will start to take the C-R theory's predictive values a little bit more seriously. Maybe they will also note "a trend" forming, that these items will all have C-R theory-based implications as a guide to understanding what is going on in our universe. IF the C-R theory is correct, then one will see WHY these things would be so, and they will start to make sense. The home reader will realize interconnections and subtle-workings of a "system" in nature that have been completely missed until now. I want YOU, the home reader to say: "Oh, NOW I see why it would do that!" by the time you finish the list of new items to notice. Will you see the pattern? Can you connect the dots? Will you anticipate FUTURE discoveries before they're made? If the C-R theory ideas are right, and YOU choose to use it, you will!!!

Last modified September 21, 2009

In the short video experiment on gravity, there were many fine points I was not able to cover within the short time-limit YouTube allows. This will cover those points, and cover items I have covered inside the C-R theory, but not yet in a blog form.

In a formal experiment, one would present a goal or an objective. We hope to ascertain the normal behavior of a tossed ball. NOTE: Whenever we toss a ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature, above the surface of the earth, the ball always returns, of it’s own accord, back into lesser curvature.

Although not mentioned in the experiment, the difference slightly above the earth is approximately 1 part in 10¹⁶ per meter either real-time energy gain, or gain of real-time. The C-R theory contends that this true energy gain is the real reason we experience gravity, and it is where the energy goes when we lift-up an item into a lesser gravitational field. A GPS satellite lifted 20,200 Km. will gain about 45 usec per day from sitting in a lesser gravitational field (it also loses about 7 usec per day from the increased speed, "falling" in earth’s gravitational field at orbital velocity). The net time-gain is about 38.5 usec per day.

In our experiment, we did not ask about time gains or trying to measure the interval difference. That would have been pointless, anyway, as the net difference was way too minuscule to measure. All we wished to establish was that, if the ball was tossed into lesser gravitational curvature, it would always return, of it’s own accord, back into a greater gravitational curvature. As many times as it was tossed, it did return successfully.

A little known fact (sometimes hard to find, also), is that gravitational curvature, or the strength of gravity, is not maximum at the surface of the earth, but increases, slowly, as one descends down, towards the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB). NOTE: This is where, using the standard Newtonian formula, G= M₁ M₂/r² would get one into trouble, unless one realized that earth’s density increases substantially with depth. (Even more unknown, the density increases more in localized "steps", rather than smoothly or linearly.) The density of seawater is about 1 g/cc, the density of soil is around 2.5 g/cc. Earth’s average density is almost 5.5 g/cc. At/or below the CMB, the density is estimated to be around 12-16 g/cc.

On the surface of the earth, the acceleration (or strength) is 9.81 m/sec², and it increases to about 10.69 m/sec² at 2,886 Km. down, at the CMB. That is rarely covered in most classes, and not generally known or talked-about. Proceeding further down, at the center, the strength of gravity is "0", or minimum. The standard Newtonian view is that acceleration continues increasing, all the way down, but at a slower and slower rate of increase.

This view comes from a neat little shortcut Newton used to calculate the strength of gravity. He "threw-away" the value of all mass above or outside-of the sphere as one proceeded towards the center, which allowed him to disregard the remaining mass.

A very good reason to suspect this mass-discarding technique might not be as valid as is conventionally thought-to-be is this: Imagine a ball, infinitely far away from the center of the earth’s mass. The net attraction to earth’s mass should be zero (or very close to zero). Now allow the attraction to be felt, and the ball accelerates towards earth at the standard Newtonian rate. Allow the ball to conveniently "fall" down a hollow shaft, towards the center of the earth, and continue accelerating. Conventional science believes that this acceleration will continue "all-the-way-down". Note: At the very center of earth’s mass, the ball has the SAME EXACT energy equivalence there that the ball had an infinite distance away from earth. (Yet science believes that energy was extracted out the whole way down!!!!) Something must be wrong with that picture, or gravity must be inconsistent. (HINT: Think of the M.C. Escher print, Waterfall, where the water continually flows in a loop, downhill, and continually powers a water-wheel in the process.)

The additional argument against the falling all the way to the center is simply the results of the experiment itself. If we carefully noted our results, in our experiment, the ball never did fall towards lesser curvature. Whenever the ball entered lesser curvature, it always returned on it’s own back towards greater curvature. Nature has "already" announced her hand, so to speak, and shown everyone her cards. Certainly, if this was a legal proceeding, the very notion of a "precedent" would almost mandate one and only one course of action.

The fact that most of earth’s scientists, geologists, physicists, mathematicians, and others who should know better have all signed-on for the "all-the-way-to-the-center" scenario will not dissuade "nature" from falling to MAXIMUM curvature, as shown in YOUR home experiment, and remaining there.

I strongly suspect that the mainstream of science will disregard the experiment as not relevant, or as not similar. THAT is why I designed this experiment with minimum equipment required, and with minimum expenses incurred, and presented it, as-is, to YOU, the home viewer. I don’t mind that you don’t believe me, I never ask you to believe me anywhere in this experiment. ALL I ask is that you DO the experiment, and reach YOUR OWN conclusions, not MINE, and not someone else’s.

You either will believe YOUR own experimental results, or you will not! You will either accept the results as a preview of what is to be expected at the MAXIMUM gravitational curvature, or you will not. The C-R theory is either right, or it is not. The critical thing is, here is an experiment that YOU can do for yourself, and reach a conclusion 180° different from what the majority of "experts" believes (without ever testing it, by the way), simply because Newton came-up with a formula a few hundred years ago. It may have been one of the supreme intellectual feats of the last millennium.

The small problem is, it may be totally wrong!! The experiment YOU just did is the reason to check it a little bit more thoroughly than to state, I KNOW it does it, so why test it? Need I remind you, the ideas about gravity proposed by Newton have NEVER BEEN CHECKED more than 7 or 8 miles down (in the ocean depths) and have not been checked by any means anywhere below the earth’s crust. They HAVE been supposed as true, and believed as true, and imagined as true, but NOT tested as true. There is a big difference between what scientists sometimes suppose things will do, and what those things do when actually tested.

I am of course familiar with Newton’s equations, and I know that they do work rather well in most above-ground situations, until you deal with either very high speed sub-atomic particles, or test the gravity in far-away places, under extravagant conditions never encountered on earth. Then one must switch to relativity to understand some of the fine points. The C-R theory contends that, to truly understand our universe, one must add-in curvature to fully appreciate how gravity works, and to understand some aspects of "How gravity behaves".

From conventional theory, one should be extremely suspicious if a ball can "fall" from as far away from earth as one can get (almost an infinite distance away) where curvature is "0", then fall all the way to earth’s surface, where gravity is 9.81 m/sec², then fall all the way below earth, clear through to the center (if a hollow path can be created), and end-up at a location where gravitational curvature is also again the minimum, or "0", and extract energy (or acceleration) all the way down. If this is not a perfect picture of a Perpetual Motion Machine, of getting something from nothing, I don’t know what is. The C-R theory has no problem with the ball falling to MAXIMUM curvature, or the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB), where gravity should be approx. 10.69 m/sec², but the C- R theory also expects the increase in the acceleration, once under the surface, will be substantially less. After reaching the MAXIMUM, the acceleration ceases, and deceleration begins. The ball must start re-surrendering the kinetic energy (the acceleration) it picked-up while falling to that point, and start slowing-down, preparing to return back to it’s minimum energy position. I know this line of reasoning or thinking is not common, and has not been evaluated or tested, much less debated.

A goal of the C-R theory is to show that curvature plays a very important part in creating or causing the gravity we do see, and gravity cannot be fully understood without understanding the part that curvature plays. If this can be realized, or started, then the C- R theory will have played it’s part.

Current mainstream science pays curvature "lip service", by acknowledging it’s presence, but then dismisses it as an "annoyance", and tries to figure-out what really happens. The C-R theory maintains that only by understanding and appreciating curvature can one fully understand how gravity works. Without this consideration, one WILL reach wrong conclusions, and be fooled. The experiment we just did gives a clear result EVERY time. Will YOU learn-from-it? Will you simply accept the Newtonian ideas because they have always seemed reasonable (and natural), without ever being tested anywhere near earth’s center. (or anywhere UNDER the MAXIMUM curvature location)

I would say that some of the biggest names in science have either written articles, books, or presented scenarios in their magazines where a ball or a person was dropped down a theoretical shaft through earth’s center. {It is tempting to single them out, but they are in good company. I will save trying to embarrass them until later, after some apparent success.} In all of those cases, the ball or the person never had a hang-up, or a suspected problem at the CMB, but sailed (and accelerated) clear down to the center of the earth, just as the Newtonian idea would have one believe. Sometimes the caveats would be added that the earth’s density would be averaged, or smoothed-out. Even this does not let them off the hook, since, in that case, the maximum curvature WOULD be at the surface of the earth. Then, the ball would never fall, it would hover, at MAXIMUM curvature, around the inside top of the shaft. HINT: If you find that hard to believe, wait about 20 some years. When humans next return to the moon, and remain there long enough to perform some simple experiments, they might find out that the C-R theory is true, and that, on the moon, the maximum curvature IS at the surface. That means, if a hole or shaft was dug down deep, they could do a very simple drop test, and see if the ball would indeed drop down. I know of no other theory which claims that the ball would not fall down, there, to the bottom of the shaft or well. On the moon, the density does not increase substantially, (or more than quadruple) with depth. This means that within 20 or so years, the C-R theory might either be vindicated, or will still be laughed-at, but it can be tested in at least one simple part. UNNOTICED ANECDOTE: The Apollo astronauts had great problems with moon dust getting into nearly everything, and being pesky to get rid-of. Now I understand the reason. On the moon, gravity will not assist in shaking or pulling-loose the dust, downward. The gravitational curvature is already at the maximum value at the surface of the moon, and dust has no incentive to "fall". The simple static-cling, or van-der-waals forces will therefore dominate, and the dust cannot simply-be shaken off. (I did not recognize this back then, as it was well before I had come-up with the C-R theory. I did not even realize this until several years ago, and this blog is the first-time I remember commenting on this phenomenon specifically.)

I hope this blog helps the home viewer/reader a bit more to realize the real uniqueness of this experiment. It is one of the few, clear differences, where some part of the C-R theory can actually be put to the test, and demonstrate something not suspected by mainstream science. The experiment is far from actual proof, but it should serve as a warning that there may be much more complexity hidden in plain sight, and by realizing the situation (rather than studying the formulas), some new insight might be gained. If you do not accept the C-R theory’s ideas, and still cling to mainstream thinking, you have that right to think-so, and I respect one who accepts (with tenacity) that which they have been taught.

My personal view is, rather than "opposing" everyone, the C-R theory is "leading the pack" in recognition of curvature’s ability to explain what is going-on in this universe. Mainstream science will catch-on, and learn this within the next 50 years, but the process is slow, and they cling to their current ideas. Once they catch-up, they will then be able to contribute further to our mutual understanding. Up until then, it will be necessary to "endure" some ridicule and disbelief. Some may be well-earned, too, but it might take time to find-out the difference. I will try diligently to point-out the many areas where I believe the C-R theory has positive contributions to make, and where legitimate phenomenon occur that conventional theory does not explain well.

Thank you for reading this, and thanks for considering the C-R theory as the potential theory of your choice when choosing a theory YOU will use to understand our universe. If you choose not to accept it for now, you are better informed for the future, and you might remember the C-R theory’s ideas on what to look-for and what to consider. If that occurs, then I’ve made progress in helping you to come-around to the C- R theory way-of-thinking.

I do believe that, if I could get 100 people to take the C-R theory seriously, and to help understand it, to help look for new areas of relevance, to apply the C-R thinking to known phenomenon, progress will "snowball". Up until that time, I will try to use every trick at my disposal, and use everything I’ve learned to evaluate the C-R theory, and tout it’s usefulness. If I discover that I’m wrong, I will try to find some alternative theory (or combinations of them) that can also help enlighten us all. If I can inform you of new areas you’ve never noticed, I believe that will ultimately help us all.

If you do have difficulty in understanding any of these concepts, feel free to write in to me. I do expect readers will have difficulty, as I’m trying to explain new concepts using existing language, or without using too many exclusive new terms. I had to "invent" the terms for the two internal parts of the Black-Hole ^C-R, the Active Zone ^C-R and the Neutral Zone ^C-R, but other than that, I have tried using existing terms.

Feel free to take advantage of all of the free videos we’ve made available on YouTube. I have tried to keep them short and not too boring, but to informally "converse" with the viewer as I would with any individual I talked-to. I figure that if I keep explaining the same items in different ways, over and over, that some viewers will eventually catch-on, and start to understand what I’m saying. Even if you don’t understand my new ideas, I try to honestly share where I think current theories have weaknesses or flaws.

If you have returned to the C-R theory web-site over 5 times, I would like to talk to you. I want people to understand these items, and I want to help you learn the C-R theory way of thinking. If you choose to reject it afterwards, that is fine. What I am trying to avoid is those who reject these ideas before they hear about them. I do realize that the C-R theory ideas are different, and they have had to reject many beliefs common to most current theories. I try to explain WHY that was done, and what the benefits are of doing so.

If you have read the blog, but have not yet visited the C-R theory home page, please do so. I also have the Completely Recycling theory for international readers, who might not understand the more subtle intentional humor in the Comedy Recycling theory. I am working on a new revision to the Completely Recycling theory, and I hope to present that on-line a bit later this year. I now have a bank of over 20 on-line videos I can refer-to, to help illustrate the concepts I’m talking-about.

Last modified Sept. 7, 2009

Blog for the day, or new item, Fishtank Physics: Why thermodynamics, the study of a glorified fishtank (with accurate measurements, and accounting for energy losses) is the ultimate, "Think-inside-the-box" type-of thinking. [Unimaginative]

To this, the C-R theory says, no wonder they won’t appreciate, understand or conceive-of the ideas needed to restore entropy created exclusively within the C-R theory. Only by exploiting the properties of the Neutral Zone ^C-R can physics someday hope to see how this universe restores entropy, and why our universe hasn’t "run out-of steam", so to speak. (There could be other ways, too, but none nearly as simple, and easy to understand.)

With the understanding of the work-energy contained within steam, and the desire to recover or use ALL of the practical amount, or as much as was physically possible to extract, the science of thermodynamics was born. Eventually, after extensive trials and tests, they realized that there was a limit to the practical amount of work that could be extracted from any amount of energy, and that depended upon the temperature differences (or energy concentrations) between the two ends. The bigger the difference, the more that could be extracted, the lesser the difference, the less that could be practically achieved (even if the energy WAS abundant, if it was too concentrated, i.e., couldn’t be "moved" to an area of lesser temperatures) energy could not be efficiently extracted.

Eventually, scientists arrived at the "second law" of thermodynamics, that energy always goes downhill, or entropy (the measure of disorder within a system) increases with time. That the C-R theory has proposed to overcome that limitation, by using the properties of the Neutral Zone ^C-R, an exclusive outer part of a C-R theory "brand-name" Black-Hole ^C-R, has not yet been accepted as "believable" by mainstream science. {Reference note: The Neutral Zone ^C-R is the portion of every Black-Hole ^C-R where matter and energy are contained at an escape velocity "Above the speed-of-light"} The C-R theory does maintain, that, by design, the Neutral Zone ^C-R either: A, Does not obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or B, cannot obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (There would be subtle differences in POSSIBILITIES and abilities, I will not discuss them at this time.)

At some later time, scholars could debate whether: The Neutral Zone ^C-R is exempt from the second law (by a legal loophole, i.e., since there is no "time" within a Neutral Zone ^C-R), or, the second law is not a law, but something less, as it only applies to Active Zones ^C-R, areas which do obey the second law. {Those areas where electromagnetic energy, or light, is active.}

The real question, or observation, is: If our universe is infinitely old (by the C-R theory hypothesis), and not just freshly-started at a big bang, then why does our universe have any energy at all, why isn’t it "run-downhill", energy-wise? Answer: This universe practically recycles matter and energy, and is particularly GOOD at it {really, more like excellent-plus some}. {I will not "scientifically" discuss whether or not "It has direct help" {from a Creator, or more specifically, The Creator}, because science cannot yet prove it, or test it with any degree of rigor, much less objectivity}. HINT: A well tended garden shows evidence of it’s tending, vs. a garden with evidence of complete abandonment or long-neglect. One simply KNOWS the difference between the two ends of those extremes. Caution needs to be exercised in the middle, though. An unattended garden (where the gardener is on a break) may look better than a tended garden, where the gardener had been away quite a while but is there, now.

Technically, mainstream science has carefully observed and measured a "glorified fishtank" and decided that that tank is a suitable model for the behavior of everything in the universe (as in The Second LAW of Thermodynamics). While their intentions are benign (if not quite admirable), the results simply do not apply (as "observed". HINT: Seen and measured under "light-speed-allowed" circumstances). Since the Neutral Zone ^C-R simply cannot be "observed" under any circumstances, this AUTOMATICALLY invalidates the conclusions derived therefrom. (meaning: It doesn’t apply!!!)

That is why the C-R theory believes it has achieved an insight based-upon situation based reasoning, where simple formulas, or observations cannot apply. It is a method not nearly-as-often used to success as might be possible. (It should be tried more regularly.)

An improved video version of: An Experiment ANYONE can do at Home, is nearly ready. It should appear within the next two weeks. If this does not significantly challenge your thinking, and raise a few eyebrows in the process, then I’ve failed. On the other hand, I hope at least some readers/viewers out there will take-up my challenge, and repeat that experiment for themselves, which can easily and cheaply be done at home {or anywhere else}. If you pay close attention, and LISTEN to what I’m saying, you may well be amazed, astounded, confused, and skeptical. If you can simply dismiss it, you’ve missed the point entirely. I will prepare a blog to be posted after the experiment is posted on-line, to follow-up on the ideas and claims I make in that video. To those few who do check it out, you may find-out something NEW which has been "Hidden-in-plain-sight" for at least 80 years.

Although the experiment has been done many times before, I intend to show YOU readers/viewers at home something new, and previously unnoticed and unconsidered. A new way to look-at the experiment, and a new viewpoint to consider.

Both the Comedy-Recycling theory and the Big Bang theory are looking for the best answers, and the simplest answers, and both clearly wish to understand our universe better. Both are using different methods, and looking in different places to search for answers. One of those two seems to be confounded by every new development, and "only" needs about 7 anomalies to make it almost work. The other one simply accepts what is seen, but understands those things much differently. Hopefully, time will tell which one is a better choice.

Many new items to blog about. I’d like to tout some of the newer videos that have recently come on-line. There should be 22 or more episodes, titles, or segments available for free viewing on YouTube. A brand-new segment on The Great Attractor should be available now. It concerns one of the real KEYS to understanding the C-R theory view. Conventional theory does not understand the significance of "The Great Attractor". After understanding gravitational curvature, the presence of "The Great Attractor" is the most important item in the universe to the Comedy-Recycling theory. If we did not see something like "The Great Attractor", the C-R theory might not have come into existence. By the C-R theory, the Great Attractor IS the center of this universe, no doubts about it. We KNOW this because the center of this universe MUST BE the most blue-shifted place we can find. This area IS running-faster than anywhere else, and for a very good reason. (see diagram)

By the C-R theory, every Black-Hole ^C-R has an exactly-critical inner-area, fully closed-off, which the C-R theory calls the Active Zone ^C-R. This is not quite as coincidental as it sounds, because one is necessary to contain enough mass, at the critical density, to close-off space(-time), and form the Black-Hole ^C-R. This takes the form of a "placeholder", or something to reference the value of time by. It is akin to the zeros (or nothings) that assign value to 10 or 100 or 1,000, or any higher whole number multiple of ten. The Active Zone ^C-R of a Black-Hole ^C-R could be likened to a (missing) hole of a doughnut or a bagel. If that "hole" was absent, you would have some other item.

If one considers geometry, we can see that at the center of the mass, The Active Zone ^C-R, the net contribution from the total mass of the sphere is zero (or minimum) at the exact center. To close-off the Active Zone ^C-R in every direction, we have exactly enough mass below every portion of the Schwarzschild radius (outer boundary) to do so. I have already covered, in other areas, why the inner area cannot collapse, and will allow interested or concerned readers to explore that topic further. For this segment, it should be enough to show that, at anywhere else but the center, time will be slowed-down in direct proportion to one’s location between the center, and the outer edges.

Interestingly, everything closer to the center will always appear blue-shifted, to anyone, anywhere else. Everything further out from the center will appear red-shifted to that viewer. If that viewer could vary their location, the colors, or amount of red-shifts and blue-shifts would vary. (See Voyage through the universe, for different views.)

Without being able to actively change our location significantly enough to notice a change (say, changing our location from inside the Milky-Way to somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy), we here on earth are "stuck" with a static view.

When viewing "The Great Attractor", if we look behind the center, the most blue-shifted point we can see, we have not detected a corresponding infall (blue-shift) coming from items behind the Great Attractor. Only from a C-R theory point-of-view, The Great Attractor makes great sense. It is simply running-faster than us, here on earth. Not only is it NOT attracting us, but since the entire region there is running-faster, or is less slowed-down, we would need to ACQUIRE additional energy (which we DO NOT now have), to be able to go there. In simpler words, THERE is the most "uphill" portion of this universe, gravitationally speaking. From a gravitational curvature view, we could NEVER fall towards there, and WE are NOT being attracted towards there, now. There is a blue-shift in that direction, but it is NOT a DOPPLER (caused) shift.

NOTE: With this arrangement, we also see increasing red-shift in ALL directions, clear out to the outer edges. Every direction looks identical, because in every direction, it is identical. No portion of this C-R theory type-of universe is ever "out-of-communication" with any other area. This type-of universe is perfectly stable, and cannot collapse (or expand). NOTE ALSO: Everything we see in this universe, phenomenon-wise, as is, is fully compatible with this type-of universe. Note, without violating Conservation of Energy continually, the C-R theory also does away with ALL 5 MAJOR anomalies needed by the Big Bang theory to implement it, or to make this universe (now) look like it does, from what IT WAS SUPPOSED to have STARTED-OFF FROM, (a singularity, at that), 13.7 billion years ago.

If the C-R theory were to invoke the principle of Occam’s razor, whereby the simplest theory, with the simplest explanation, and the FEWEST violations of common-sense triumphs; it should win, hands-down. I will leave such conclusions to you, the interested reader.

If I were to chart the comparative ridiculousness between the Comedy-Recycling theory, and the Big Bang theory (and/or it’s designated successors), again, I think the C-R theory wins.

The above represents the real importance of "The Great Attractor" to YOUR understanding of this universe. I do not consider the challenge so much, the C-R theory AGAINST the rest of the world, so much as it is, the C-R theory precedes (leads) the understanding (and appreciation) of phenomenon like "The Great Attractor", by 50 years or more.

To mine a metaphor, conventional theory has thrown out the baby (a.k.a., gravitational curvature), and is studying the bathwater. In short, their priorities and attention have been diverted from the real (or future) treasure. The Comedy-Recycling theory is trying to "gently" correct the situation, and attempts to point-out where one might look, what to look-for, what to notice, and what it’s significance is. Conventional theory has rejected, or minimized gravitational curvature as kind-of an interesting sideshow or a diversion. Instead, they study the existing, Newtonian-based equations, attempting to learn the secrets of gravity in the "old-fashioned" way. That is not always the wrong way to approach the subject, but in dealing with "singularities", relativistic-based equations have no real relevance.

The Comedy-Recycling theory has tried a new approach, and has attempted to understand "the situation", from a common-sense perspective. If you, the home reader, can appreciate this insight, and learn to apply it, you may come to discover and understand an entire layer of complexity, inter-relatedness, inter-weaving, sophistication, and practical re-use of KNOWN properties of matter. {Something akin to learning about the entire forest, for one who had been studying only the leaves, and was un-aware of their oversight.}

The above paragraph is either an overstatement, or wild imagining, or it is true, and available to anyone who will listen and learn. I do not expect many to partake, as they are too well "trained", and have learned their lessons all too well. My hope is, that some who read this are open-minded enough to do an honest, side-by-side comparison.

I have something-like 20 additional video segments and titles shot, but not yet edited and labeled. I have plans to shoot at least 25 more topics, and cover some of the above areas from a C-R theory view. I will try to show some linkages between the known properties of matter, and how the C-R theory claims those properties are used, exploited, and leveraged to accomplish amazing things.

I know of no other theory which seriously attempts a SIMPLE explanation of: How this universe recovers or restores and reverses entropy. The simple properties of the Neutral Zone ^C-R, the portion of the Black-Hole ^C-R where the escape velocity is ABOVE the speed-of-light, are so useful, and so practical, I cannot imagine a Creator or Master Designer would be unaware of the situation. The basic properties of matter just happen to exactly "fit-into" a scenario where the Black-Hole ^C-R takes full advantage of the difference in behavior between gravity (which does emanate from a Black-Hole ^C-R), and electromagnetism (heat, light, and accumulated electrical charge), which are trapped, inactivated, isolated, insulated, shut-down, turned-off and "looped-out of the plane", so to speak.

If the Active Zone ^C-R is the matter (real-time) equivalent to a digital "1", or ON, the Neutral Zone ^C-R represents the digital equivalent of a "Zero", or OFF. However "turned-off" the matter in the Neutral Zone ^C-R is, it cannot be turned-off any more. {An analogy would be, with a lamp circuit and one switch turned-off, would adding additional off-switches turn-off the lamp any further? No, but it might complicate restoring the circuit to activity.}

If any designers out there could design a more useful tool, to extract more from the properties of matter and energy, than are derived from the C-R theory "brand-name" Black-Hole ^C-R, please let me know. I would challenge you, if nature does not use something like this, then why not? The concept seems so useful, so practical, it almost has to be true.

HINT: Read ANY description, of ANY phenomenon, found in ANY direction in this universe, and ask yourself, does the C-R theory scenario describe it better than the Big Bang theory? Do we see enormous electrical currents, polarized light, and cosmic rays? (yes, everywhere) Is matter observed to be organized more compactly, with much more complexity, than should-have been allowed by the Big Bang theory, given the supposed time from the birth of the universe? (yes, often)

Are galaxies much more fully formed, with complex elements, than should be allowed given their seemingly "young" ages? (yes) Do supernova remnants keep on expanding, sometimes thousands (if not hundreds-of-thousands) of years after the explosion, when they should-have cooled off due to the amount of expansion they already have undergone? (yes)

Fitting the universe back into the supposed Big Bang places enormous constraints upon our universe, to have performed complex maneuvers and smoothed-out rapidly, with totally "unknown" causal mechanisms. Much more has been "supposed" for the Big Bang, than has actually been demonstrated from the current facts (or the real, observed data).

The Comedy-Recycling theory is either a better description of what is going on, or it is not. The Comedy-Recycling theory is either a simpler understanding of this universe, or it is not. The universe either behaves closer-to the C-R theory expectations, or it does not. All of these should be demonstrated over time. HINT: Over the last 30 years, this author HAS noticed a decided "endorsement" of something close-to the C-R theory expectations from nature. I would welcome an honest, independent, unbiased comparison, by ALL of you readers at home. Check it out for yourselves.

My belief is that the C-R theory fits our universe better, is far simpler to understand, and is more compatible with many known newly-discovered phenomenon that do not fit well into current understandings or paradigms using the Big Bang.

Getting back to the video segments. Please feel free to watch the segments, and try to imagine the events described from a C-R theory point-of-view. It would not be unreasonable to need to review them many times, in context, to start to appreciate their "newness". I have covered most of the key concepts very briefly. {Expect to NEED to read-through the on-line text of corresponding sections in the C-R theory, to extract the full value, and appreciate the subtleties.} Some redundancy is allowed for segments to notice certain areas common to all videos. More will be added soon, to join the "family" of available videos.

I would like to "plug" the segment on "Curvature IS the Real Cause of Gravity". This highlights one of the KEY concepts in the C-R theory. It is the "discovery(?") that curvature changes the energy-content of matter, and this IS what produces gravity, as we know it. The concept is so new, and so different, so "out-of-the-box", thinking-wise, it has been both ignored or disregarded by standard theories. Only the C-R theory makes an argument that in this way, nature has solved the very tricky problem, How to Cause gravity without "radiating" anything at "greater than the speed-of-light", outside the Black-Hole ^C-R. [Like speed-of-light "limited" gravitons, travelling only at "c", to "cause" gravity.]

Just this week, we added a segment on "The Great Attractor". What is a serious mystery to conventional theory, is shown to be easily understood with a simple new change in thinking, unique to the C-R theory. Additionally, the "Great Attractor" is nature’s answer to some important questions [see the video to learn what they are].

Also added less than two weeks ago, Why Nature Needs Two Different Inverse-square Forces. {Gravity and Electromagnetism}. If you have never wondered why, this video may start you thinking, and provide a new answer to a profound question.

The Video on "10,000 Lesser Black-Holes^C-Rat our Galaxy’s Center" provides a thought that only the C-R theory can answer. Why are 10,000 Black-Holes ^C-R just outside our galaxy’s supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R at the center. Has Nature gone awry, or is there a plan and a purpose in operation? HINT: Conventional theory has NO clue what is going on here, but guess what theory DOES have an answer?

If you have never asked yourself, Why does the speed-of-light ALWAYS measure the speed-of-light when it is measured, perhaps watching the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle video might suggest an answer never considered anywhere else. Even if it is WRONG, I believe you might gain a new appreciation of something never suspected or claimed elsewhere.

Although it has been out longer than all but the original video, "April-Fooling Science, Twice" is still very worthwhile. It was intended for a premier on April-Fool’s Day, but don’t think it isn’t still relevant. I would recommend anyone check this video out, and re-consider some of your long-held beliefs.

There are also other "worthwhile" videos, but the above mentioned ones are among the best, and the most profound. If you see those first, you will have the best shot at understanding some of the ideas from the C-R theory.

If you cannot yet accept the concepts, I understand, and I also empathize. It took me quite a while, at least 3 years, to warm-up to the ideas. It took even longer before I decided, not only to embrace the concepts, but to endorse them, to advocate them, to personally explain them, and then to place it all on-line. I understand the reluctance of many out there to ditch their lifetime of learning, and switch their allegiances over to the C-R theory. The "curvature-cause" hypothesis is not yet appreciated, not yet endorsed, by the mainstream. (i.e., not yet SAFE to academically accept or promote)

I would highly encourage readers to view the available segments, and try to appreciate the possible new insights provided by the C-R theory. I hope that the visual elements, and my verbal emphasis can make the concepts seem more reasonable than my simple descriptions on the written page would seem. Ideas on these segments are not available elsewhere, and not espoused by science, and are not appreciated or even noticed.

My goal is to introduce the reader/viewer to the concepts, and try to bridge the gap and to explain some of what I think I see when I view this universe, and read about new discoveries by others. I try to point-out things not readily noticed and things not seen-as related by present professionals. There are many areas where I believe the C-R theory can contribute to a new and improved understanding of all that is going-on around us in this universe. So many newly discovered phenomenon seem to fit-in to the C-R theory mold, and seem to be governed by something close-to what the C-R theory would expect. Unless others (independent readers) notice this, too, it may prove self-fictional. I would like others to evaluate what is really seen in this universe from a C-R theory understanding. If they do not sense the excitement, and relish the possibilities for new insights; "Oh, well, I tried." If I can convince others to simply look-around, and evaluate what is already known-about, I believe we may achieve, at-least, an entirely new level of insight, a new anticipation for things to check, and where to check them. What I am trying to do is show YOU readers at home, where to look next, what to suspect for connections, or interrelatedness to C-R theory working scenarios.

A recent viewer of the video, "Disproving the World's Greatest Experts on Gravity" commented, "As long as the ball is not at the centre of the earth there's still more mass on one side than on the other side. Gravity will decrease but even 0.00001 G still means acceleration."

The C-R Theory's Author and segment host's reply:

Thank you for writing in and posting your reply.  I would agree, from the conventional theory (Newtonian) way of thinking, your response would be correct, and would be the standard way of thinking.  If you carefully check out the C-R theory ideas, what I tried to show is that real gravity may have other ideas, and Nature has "laid her cards on the table, face-up, and showed everyone her hand." to speak metaphorically.

Note that Einstein claimed that curvature was the cause of gravity.  The C-R theory is trying to take that point and emphasize it, and believe it, and demonstrate what that might truly mean.  I would agree that, by conventional thinking (what IS written in textbooks, what IS taught in class), the curvature idea has been dismissed, missed, and disrespected.  What the C-R theory is attempting to do is show anyone willing to listen, is that Nature may not always work like the textbooks think, or expect.

The point of the experiment is to show that, BY THE EXPERIMENT, the ball, starting-from the surface of the earth, when thrown into LESSER curvature (in this case, UP into the air), ALWAYS returns back into GREATER gravitational curvature. *(The exception would be, if you could toss the ball up with greater-than either the earth's orbital velocity or the escape velocity, after allowing for losses-by air-resistance and drag.)

It is interesting that the Newtonian point is so widely trusted, and believed, it is ACCEPTED as a FACT.  My point is, it has NEVER been tested from-UNDER the earth's MAXIMUM gravity, below 2886 km under the earth's surface.  It is ASSUMED to work just the same, from "under there", as it does from above the earth.

What you missed, (and you are joined by almost ALL of earth's scientists, geologists, physicists, and others) is that: IF the ball falls only to MAXIMUM curvature, and NOT BEYOND it, to MINIMUM curvature, at the earth's center, the Newtonian rules WILL NOT apply (regardless of what is PRINTED in the textbooks, or what is taught.)

I would agree with you that it is EXPECTED to fall all the way to the center of the earth, but I would caution you that this has NEVER actually been tested or OBSERVED, down there.

What was done, in the experiment in the YouTube video, was to SHOW that by that experiment, one COULD claim that the ball WOULD fall ONLY to the greatest (maximum) curvature.  The observed result, DIRECTLY from that experiment was: Every time the ball was tossed into lesser (weaker) gravitational curvature, the ball returned back, on it's own, into greater curvature, without fail.

My claim, based ONLY upon that ONE experiment (which ANYONE can do), is that we NOW have experimental evidence to cast possible doubt upon an almost universal expectation by experts, teachers, and textbooks.

Admittedly, neither side could be demonstrated to be true (or PROOVED false), using present technology.  What I was trying to show you was, THAT there is a reasonable doubt, based SOLELY upon the above experiment.

Your conclusions may differ.  Based upon conventional thinking, that above experiment is not the same. (But that is NOT proof, it is EXPECTATION, based-upon the Newtonian formula.)

I do thank you for writing-in, and for DEFENDING the conventional view, which I have no doubt, you believe.  I would simply ask, please perform the above experiment, and think about it from a "curvature-based" (or CURVATURE-CAUSED) viewpoint.  If you HONESTLY do so, you may come to realize there is a possible dilemma, and a real reason to doubt THE EXPECTED OUTCOME.

Nature HAS NOT hidden the answer, but POSTED-IT in plain sight, for all to see, and all to check.  NOTE: From this experiment, the ball ALWAYS returns back to the GREATEST curvature, and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER returns to lesser (weaker) gravitational curvature.  If you HONESTLY do not expect the ball to "fall" from Greatest curvature, at the Core  Mantle Boundary {CMB}, back up, towards the LESSER curvature at the surface of the earth, I would join you.  However, if you would expect the ball to fall from the GREATEST gravitational curvature, at the CMB, and fall to even lesser gravitational curvature, becoming MINIMUM curvature, at the center of the earth, PLEASE perform the above experiment again, and check your notes about curvature's values.  AFTER doing so, do you now see what I'm saying?  Do you sense a potential dilemma?

The standard Newtonian expectation is one way, the expectation from curvature is almost exactly the opposite.  The experiment you performed seems to demonstrate the curvature-basedoutcome is more likely, or would conform to the conclusions from the experiment.  I did ask, at the end of the experiment, who YOU, the viewer at home would believe.  You have answered your particular choice.  We differ in our conclusions.  I have an experiment, which ANYONE can perform, which suggests that a non-Newtonian outcome may be much more reasonable than has been suspected.

I do look forward to the day when the outcome can be tested.

HINT: When humans return to the Moon, drilling a shaft deep down, the C-R theory predicts that a ball will not fall.  On the Moon, the maximum curvature IS already at the surface, and NOT anywhere below.  We may find out within 20 years.

Sorry for the length of the response, but I do want to emphasize the dilemma, and give viewers/readers a clearer picture of what I'm claiming in the video.

HINT: If the C-R theory ideas don't sound crazy to you, you probably don't understand them.

Jerry Reynard  7-29-2009  C-R theory author and segment host.

Although it does not have anything to do with the overall C-R theory, I would like to include a few technical details for the interested viewer-reader, about the shooting of the segments for the C-R theory.

The first actual segment which we shot was the simple experiment, Disproving the World’s Greatest Experts on Gravity.  We shot that outside of the Gallery Place main entrance, on a cold stone bench on a cold winter’s day in February.  Although I was happy with the video quality, the sound lacked the clarity I had hoped-for.  Some segments not used on the included clip used the built-in mike on the Sony camcorder, and it was not suitable for downtown use.  The low frequency bus rumble and wind noise and overall traffic noise was objectionable even though the traffic was 10-20 times further from the camera than I was.  The included segment used a Calrad shotgun mike about 3 feet away from me (out of camera range).  The sound was better, but the traffic and wind noise was still much greater than I cared for.

Segments filmed in a park a few weeks later used the same shotgun mike even closer, and placed on the ground (on a short gooseneck mike stand), aimed up at me (at least 35 degrees away from city traffic a half-block behind me).  The occasional fire-engine’s, sirens, and bus and truck rumble, and traffic horns were noticeable, but not dominating.  I did enable a frequency-rolloff filter afterwards in the editing studio, where I cut everything below 300 Hz and removed highs above 5 Khz.  (I use this for almost all voice segments shot outside, in the real world.)  The noise is recorded, but filtered after-the-fact.

When we started shooting segments at the National Building Museum at the Big Blue Nut (part of a sculpture outside the building), I used the shotgun mike handheld, within 6", and the background noise was much less annoying.  We tried a cheap wireless mike as an alternative for sound pick-up, but the radio frequency interference downtown DC made it near-useless, with dropouts and clicks randomly occurring.  The setup may be OK for the suburbs, but we don’t bring it along anymore on downtown video shoots.

Almost all of the camera shots are mounted to a tripod.  I have a lightweight tripod, with lousy pan or sweep capabilities, which I use on fixed, non-moving shots.  Once set, it stays motionless.  I have a much nicer tripod with very smooth fluid-like motion, with good pan characteristics, but it is much-bigger, and about twice as heavy.  (Bringing it inside buildings is more of a hassle, too, with increased security worries.)  It also stands as high as 6’ when cranked-up all the way, so it is good for shots needing height advantages.

I don’t like face close-ups, especially of me, and since I edit all the videos, none get used by me.  Broadcasters like to over-zoom-in on faces when their hired "talent" is talking, but I don’t work for them.  I like very relaxed, room-sized conversation-style talks, as if I were in your living room, or in some public place, telling you about the C-R theory.  No-one has written-in to complain, yet {but even if they did, I might not change}, so I intend to keep it that way for the near future.

I am still learning to edit videos with the software, Sony Vegas Pro 8 version.  I haven’t nearly mastered all the tricks, yet, but there is enormous capability within the software.  I have been tempted to try-to color-correct or contrast-enhance some of the videos, but I haven’t done so.  I haven’t even tried any of the multitude of transition effects from scene-to-scene.  Many of the segments have been single-takes, with no internal editing.

I still have several hours of shots needing editing, and have enough material for 20-30 more short segments.  Since many of the C-R theory ideas are very different from standard science-thinking, I hope these video clips help to get-across the C-R theory point-of-view better than just "words on a page".  I know many of these ideas have never even been considered as reasonable, and I know mainstream science rejects (or rejected in the past and intend to remain consistent) the key C-R theory ideas, because no-one has ever considered or championed them.  I intend to change that with these videos.

I expect those that already have an opinion will not change overnight, if ever.  What I hope-for is that a new generation, who have not yet been taught that things don’t work this way, might find the advantages in understanding gained by considering the C-R theory points outweigh the old methods, which clearly DON’T understand, much less anticipate, much of what is seen in this universe.

I am reminded of an old quote (I believe asked of Neils Bohr): Professor, we all know your theory is crazy, the real question is; is it crazy enough?  I am additionally reminded of a suitable hypothetical humorous reply: Dear Mr. Reynard, I strongly doubt your C-R theory is half crazy, I believe both halves are crazy.  Such methods may be needed to arrive at a simple way to understand what goes-on in this universe.  It is one thing to come-up with convoluted theories based-upon "squiggly-line funny Greek symbols" filling-up blackboards or book pages needing triple PhD-major degrees to understand, but the C-R theory did not try that way.

Upcoming segments expected soon should be: 10,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R at our galaxy’s central 3 Light-years; Overcoming Entropy; "brand-name" Black-Holes ^C-R, and their 2 "key" internal parts; Why Supernova Remnants continue Expanding; What LHC scientists have already missed, (and right under their noses, too); A Prediction from UnderstandingCurvature: No Frame-Dragging

I have a list with at least 40-50 more potential short topics I would like to cover, giving a unique C-R theory insight into our universe.  Almost all of these ideas covering: "How gravity [as curvature] works (& friends)", are new areas (to science), totally unexpected by the way current scientists have been trained.  Even if these ideas are wrong, they have NEVER been objectively considered, just pre-rejected or excluded.  I would like to demonstrate how I understand that curvature really works, and how it imposes certain constraints upon matter, in very simple ways, that reveals a "hidden-side" of our universe as a complete, working-recycling system, "closed-off" yet not "run-down" or dissipated.  How what we see in this universe IS EVIDENCE of a system, operating smoothly and precisely, behaving as one might expect such a system to do.

    My hope is that, if I show you, the blog readers, where to look, what to look-for, how to check nature out, what it is doing, why "what is actually seen" makes sense, how it fits into a plan, and reasons that it gives YOU a more reasonable explanation than the existing competition {The Big Bang}, should give at least some readers valuable new insights they have never considered before.  I want to share these new thoughts, new processes, new understandings with anyone who will listen (or read them).  If you then reject them, at least you have had the opportunity to learn something new, and to find-out a new way to learn from nature by simple observation.  If you have been too well indoctrinated by the current system, those who replace you may come to my understanding.

If these C-R theory ideas I have presented are not correct, then any errors should surface and be pointed-out.  The events I describe, and the methods I suggest to use should fail spectacularly (now or in the future).  You will then know another way that nature does not work.  If I can get other individuals looking into 40-50 areas of current poor understanding, maybe one of them can see something more than I have seen, if I am wrong.  At least, the jokes should still be funny, even if the insight expires.

As always, your comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome.  If any readers know of phenomenon I have not mentioned, or linked-in to the C-R theory, that sound like they could fit-in to the C-R theory understanding, or bolster the C-R theory’s acceptance, that would probably be even more welcome.

If you can think a new thought, or discover a new process inspired by the C-R theory’s ideas (but not directly attributable to it), that would be fine, too.

Last revised July, 7, 2009