Blog for the year-end of December, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DEMONSTRATION:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      COMMENT:

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

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

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

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

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

EXPAND UPON IT (pun)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry Reynard

October-November blog: There is a special issue of Astronomy magazine for Fall, 2011, that just came out, called : Bob Berman’s 50 Weirdest Objects in the Cosmos, and I let this topical issue bump-back my original lead for this blog which was about the Crab Nebula’s surprises. [I had hinted in the last blog that I wanted to cover the multiverse, but decided the more-immediate opportunities were too fresh and too exciting to cover these other articles that were discussed.  I will save my comments about the multiverse for the next, or a later blog.]

      I try to regularly visit a certain bookstore, a block away from the theater where I like to catch independent and international films downtown, in Washington DC.  That means I have an excuse to walk one block, and check for the newest issues of many magazines.  I had read the previews for this “new special issue” lead item in this blog, and figured it would be a good possibility to feature some items of interest to the C-R theory’s readers.  The nicest things about some of the 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos is that many of Bob Berman’s selections are probably “weird” specifically for their electromagnetic activities, or unexpected (by mainstream science), high-levels of energy released.

      I will attempt to cover some of the most interesting items, from the C-R theory view, that were featured in this special issue, in the first part of this blog.  The issue should be available on newsstands now, for a few months.  I would encourage those regular readers of the C-R theory to pick-up or at least, look-at this magazine, if they can find it. [I don’t know about it’s availability internationally, though.]

      The first weird item of “C-R theory interest” is Sagittarius A*, the 49^th of 50 objects, counting backwards.  It is the Black-Hole ^C-R at the center of our galaxy.  From the C-R theory, the main reason this large Black-Hole ^C-R is so “quiet” is that it is also surrounded by as many as 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R, which collectively do intercept most of the loose-and-available “edible” matter [hydrogen gas], near our galaxy’s central 3 lightyears of volume.

      The real significance of these 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R is totally missed by mainstream science, which does not expect a C-R theory type-of process to be going on.  I suspect that these lesser Black-Holes ^C-R may also have something to do with our central Black-Hole ^C-R being a “measly 4 million solar-masses”, as compared to the billion(s) of solar-massed supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R, seen in other galaxies.

      HINT: The 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R may be the real reason(s) behind the excellent “livability” in our galaxy, vs. the enormous radiation outputs experienced in galaxies with far-larger central Black-Holes ^C-R, that make those galaxies much less hospitable to lifeforms like us.

      Without giving too much away, it might be the actions of these 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R which help-to release all of the high-energy excess electrons which becomes the source for the filling-up the two huge lobes, containing 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy, filling the 25,000 light-years above and below our galaxy’s center. {As compared to only the central Black-Hole ^C-R being the generator of the energy filling these lobes.} Those lobes were just discovered last year. (HINT: Those mysterious lobes MAY also feature prominently later on in this special issue.)

      NOTE: Mainstream science maintains that these lobes are filled with pairs of electrons and anti-electrons {positrons}, mysteriously created by interactions with dark matter, [which the C-R theory says does not exist].  The C-R theory claims that these lobes are filled with almost pure electrons, freshly stripped-off from the Black-Hole’s ^C-R lunch.  Whether these electrons came from matter eaten by the central Black-Hole ^C-R, or from the lesser 20,000 Black-Holes ^C-R, or some combination of both, cannot be determined right now.  What is CERTAIN, is that there are enough potential suspect Black-Holes ^C-R lurking there, in and around the center of our galaxy and in that immediate vicinity, and there are huge lobes filled with something highly energetic.

      The C-R theory’s argument is that, by conventional theory, standard black holes should not be spontaneously creating excess-energy electron-pairs by simply “existing”. One can argue that the central Black-Hole ^C-R, Sagittarius A*, shows very little current activity, as compared with many other central supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R in other galaxies.

      Another 2 items featured in the 50 weirdest objects issue are the Crab Nebula and it’s remnant pulsar, which will be covered later in the second part of this blog.

      The starburst galaxy (item # 47), M82, becomes an interesting possibility, for showcasing the release of a huge amount of energy from one of the supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R at the center of a galaxy, colliding with another galaxy, M81.  The huge amounts of radio energy, exploded gas, and infrared energy should be indications of some earlier activity which should be consistent with the release of the contents from a supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R, accumulated over eons or billions of years.  This is how I believe nature recycles matter and energy, and restores the “freshness” of this universe, internally.

      Unfortunately, it may take millions or billions of years to determine (from earth’s vicinity), whether such processes are indeed, going on.  I do hope that the C-R theory provides an adequate alternative to the Big Bang, and gives our home-readers some believable new way to understand what is actually going-on in this universe.

      The Antenna Galaxies (item # 45) seem to indicate yet another type of energy release event, where two galaxies seem to be colliding, and the processes of star-creation is going wild.  Where the “weirdness” comes in is from the (unsuspected) electromagnetic qualities that are just not supposed to be going-on, aided and abetted by the huge releases of energy and electrical (positive or protons) charges freed-up when a supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R becomes contorted-enough to release some, or all of it’s contents.

      Where conventional science wants to attribute ALL of this energy released in galaxy collisions solely to gravity [including the huge “fictional” contributions from unseen masses of dark matter], the C-R theory contends that the central Black-Hole’s ^C-R role in this process is totally unsuspected, and unaccounted-for.  I would advise readers to look at the claims from the C-R theory, and LOOK for similar occurrences everywhere there are enormous quantities of energy released, confined positive charges explosively freed-up, and rings of released charges expanding at velocities not explainable by initial temperatures created in conventional processes.

      My hope is that others will realize that one CAN understand more of the type-of events we actually find occurring in these spectacular displays everywhere we look, and can add a few layers of insight. [without needing ANY dark matter]

       Even though we do live in an era with improved technical resources, and can search the heavens with fantastic new “appliances”, both astronomers and cosmologists do not understand the many clues nature is TRYING to give us, as to the operations inside our universe.  They ARE baffled by a search for a real underlying CAUSE, or a believable energy source to “pay-for-it-all”.  It SHOULD-BE an embarrassment to science that the “dark energy” ultimately comes from seemingly nothing, right out of thin air.  THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. (It may be wishful thinking or fairy-tales.)

      As an alternative, the C-R theory only uses known objects and known forces, in new ways, to accomplish processes which should sound remarkably-like what we actually find in the real world.  We NEVER get something from nothing, and everything is paid-for-in-full, energy-wise.  The processes are new (and maybe speculative).

      Next on the list is the galaxy at Centarus A, NGC 5128, (item # 42).  It features massive lobes of high energy particles leaving the central Black-Hole ^C-R at speeds at least half the speed-of-light.  Do these solid particles gain some of their energy from jets of pure electrons, which only the C-R theory expects to emanate from a feeding Black-Hole ^C-R? It emits intense radio waves.  There was also a jet of X-rays, which could also indicate the presence of high energy electrons.

      Arp 220, (item # 38) is the most intense infrared source from a galaxy in our sky.  It was catalogued by Halton Arp.  It seems to have regions of, both stars born a half-billion years ago, and regions of stars very recently fired-up (within the last few million years).  I suspect some C-R theory-type processes will be featured here, too.

      One of the next items on the list is Io, (item # 34), Jupiter’s innermost large moon. From the C-R theory, this moon receives a [time and orbit varying] cyclic flux-tube-current of up to 5,000,000 amps, and NASA has measured a voltage of 400,000 volts across Io’s face.  The C-R theory claims that at least some of this electrical current could be contributing to the active, sulfur spewing volcanoes observed . {The items of interest to the C-R theory were not featured in this article, but this moon, Io, was noticed for it’s weirdness.}

      I may save more items on this top 50 list for the next blog, in the interest of finishing this blog up and getting it on-line sooner, rather than waiting until even later.  I was already planning to feature some new comments on two more of the items on the list, both from the Crab Nebula and it’s remnant pulsar, before I obtained the issue, so I will comment on them, below.  

      I was reviewing some articles, at work, over my lunchtime, about the most recent surprises from the Crab Nebula.  It emitted outbursts of gamma ray energy over a very short scale, many times more powerful than it’s normal output.  An article from earlier this year was stating that the Crab Nebula’s electrons emitted were already some 100 times more energetic than the best of earth’s “high-energy accelerators” can muster. [up to 100 GeV] That also includes the regular pulses emitted by the Crab Nebula’s pulsar.

      Scientists had grown so accustomed to the “normal” Crab Nebula energy-output, that it had been used to calibrate some earlier equipment in space.  Later-on, it was found that even this normal output has surprising, short-term variations coming from it.

      While earth’s scientists attribute the outgoing beams, travelling at 99.99% of the speed-of-light, to an equal mix of electrons and anti-electrons (positrons), the C-R theory would claim that the beam is the leftover residue from a Black-Hole’s ^C-R lunch (or dinner), and is almost purely electrons.  

      While the electrons should normally repel each other, their collective magnetic fields might just bunch them together, to make it easier for them to leave the scene, en-masse, somewhat reminiscent of a mass-jailbreak, where the escapees band together to escape, then flee separately later-on, after they’ve fled the scene.  

      I remember seeing stock footage from early amusement parks showing groups of people sitting on some wooden circles, who would go shooting-off sideways, when the circles were spun around.  If we could imagine that flat circle as a half a globe, and reverse that footage, it might resemble what the proposed electrons do when leaving a Black-Hole ^C-R.

      Whether or not that is how electrons really behave, it would be one of the simplest explanations as to what could cause two, intensely-energetic beams to shoot-away from Black-Holes ^C-R at 99.99% of the speed-of-light.  The analogy above kind-of simplifies why those electrons would bunch-up into two beams, emerging from the top and bottom of the spinning Black-Hole ^C-R, vs. leaking away from all directions, as an expanding shell.

      If any of the C-R theory’s readers out there has a spare supercomputer, and a few million dollars to spare, it would be interesting to see if a simulation of the C-R theory-based processes would produce the required jets of matter.  A simulation based on the existing theories, where the electrical charge does not become infinitely isolated inside, and the electrons are not stripped-off, will not show anything like what is seen.

      Note: this electron-rejection idea, based upon the construction, operation, and feeding of the Black-Hole ^C-R, is unique to the C-R theory.  For a fuller description of how the Black-Hole ^C-R works, see my earlier blogs, or the C-R theory sections on Black-Hole ^C-R operation.

      Another hallmark of the C-R theory’s differences is that the generic supernova’s enormous instantaneous release of intense energy is primarily due to the escape of a built-up from accumulations of positive charges, rather than a runaway, one-time thermonuclear fusion reaction at the end stages of a star’s lifetime.

      Note: If there is a sudden, explosive release of an enormous quantity of newly-liberated positive charges, the SUDDEN re-appearance of those charges could also contribute substantially to the enormous magnetic fields attributed to both pulsars and magnetars.

      Some magnetar’s magnetic fields have been estimated at one trillion Teslas. [Our earth’s magnetic field is about 0.6 Teslas.] This level of magnetic fields simply CANNOT be created on earth (yet), as the best laboratory equipment disintegrates or shears-apart from stresses after reaching about 1 million Teslas.

      This simple causative mechanism also easily explains the origins (and continual replenishment) behind the source of cosmic rays.  The cosmic rays are predominantly single, high-energy protons.  I read last year that one extreme cosmic ray had been measured to have at least 300 quintillion eV, even though the “average” cosmic rays encountered were much less energetic (at a half-million to a million eV).

      NOTE: I have also read that such an energetic cosmic ray would allow that single proton to pack an energy-punch equivalent to a major league baseball [fastball] thrown into a catcher’s mitt.  Fortunately, most of those cosmic rays are intercepted by our protective atmosphere, and become converted into a massive shower or swarm of lesser-energy particles, well before they can impact us.

      Every second of every day, several cosmic rays are crashing through your bodies, leaving a trail of damage, which does build-up over a lifetime.  The cellular repair mechanisms of your body attempt to repair the most significant damages, but subtle changes do persist.

      I do not know of any other theory, besides the C-R theory, that is willing and able to make very specific predictions as to what to look-for, and where to look.  I invite all of our home readers to look for reports of new phenomenon featuring C-R theory-like levels of energy output.

      In spite of the tendency for science writers to “not-write” articles from a C-R specific vantage point, there is abundant evidence left in the everyday reports suggesting vastly more electromagnetic activity, magnetic fields, interstellar gas flows, ionization, warm gasses (from 4,000 to 10,000 K) in the Reynold’s layer, huge lobes filled with electrons (or else, a 50-50 mix of electrons and anti-electrons, if standard theory is correct).

      Strong Hint: If we also observe all of the electromagnetic radiation emanating from galaxies, in almost every energy band, and the level of polarization, from the presence of strong magnetic fields, we can check that SOMETHING electrical is going-on there.

      The REAL IRONY: In spite of ALL the evidence for electromagnetic activity inside galaxies, astronomers want to attribute the action holding galaxies arms together exclusively to gravity, generated by dark matter, for which there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence, instead of a KNOWN FORCE, electromagnetism, which is 10⁴⁰ times stronger, per atom, than the attraction from gravity.  Every galaxy we detect seems to be rife with polarized light, magnetic fields, radiation in every band from radio, microwave, infrared, light, X-rays, and gamma rays.

      If we were to set-up a police-style line-up, looking for the “guilty parties” to “blame” for holding-together galaxy arms, let us imagine this example.  To cause the Reynold’s layer, found in the Milky Way and other nearby galaxies, dark matter would be needed to generate the excess gravity to hold-together the galaxy arms from shearing-off or smearing out, and twisting (spiraling-around) until the arms were stir-blended (mixed-in until they were homogenous) together.

      Or, to generate the magnetic fields capable of confining or constraining the galaxy’s arms from shearing-off, we would need candidates to blame for the 4,000-10,000 K hydrogen gas layer. [the Reynold’s layer] If we lined-up ALL of the galaxy’s 200 billion stars, side by side, and had them each read “I’m guilty” (of causing this galaxy’s arms to hold together intact, magnetically), we could eliminate those below 4,000 K and above 10,000 K.  That would still leave tens of billions of viable suspects to consider.

      The world’s scientists just have had such “blinders” on, that they have only considered dark matter as the possible source of the missing gravity, and “forgotten-about” the other 50% of the known inverse-square forces, electromagnetism, for which I (as the C-R theory’s author) consider the evidence to be abundant and overwhelming.

      I would appreciate any of my incoming home-readers to help get out the idea that there is a practical, reasonable alternative to dark matter to explain why galaxies hold together available in the C-R theory.

      The recent surprises from the Crab Nebula were said to be unexpected by scientists, but I think they are more “good news” for the C-R theory.  There were unexpectedly high levels of x-rays varying over very short time intervals found coming from the remnant location of the explosion in the Crab Nebula.  I probably have avoided this topic, from a C-R theory standpoint, since I felt that the pulsar left behind more clearly seemed to demonstrate a neutron star-like behavior, as opposed to a Black-Hole ^C-R like appearance.  Just recently, in searching articles about the Crab Nebula, I came across an article from April, 2011, with descriptions of the emissions from the Cygnus X-1 pulsar as “electrons with over 100 times the amount of energy of anything we can produce in our most advanced LHC.  That article emboldened-me, and reminded me that only the C-R theory claims that Black-Holes ^C-R emit copious amounts of these high-energy electrons.

      This helped me to decide that maybe the C-R theory ideas can help here, in this case, too, and that the pulsar at this spot is either a type of a Black-Hole ^C-R, or somehow, is mimicking the same [or a very similar process] as I have attributed to Black-Holes ^C-R.  If it also is stripping off the electrons from matter, and confining the neutrons and protons as effectively as a Black-Hole ^C-R, then it is time to let science have a look to see if it is so.  Give that idea a fair “test-drive”.

      I’ve been saying for over 30 years that the Black-Hole ^C-R eats only the proton and proton-neutron combination, and separates [and spits-out or rejects] the electrons, without consuming very many (if any).

      Either these high energy electrons ARE from Black-Holes ^C-R, or something similar that the pulsar there is mimicking.  This means that, maybe the C-R theory ideas can be of use here, to help scientists to understand what is going on.  Mainstream science certainly is not looking for any “C-R theory-like” mechanisms.  At least until some other, more plausible process can be proposed, get the C-R theory’s “foot-in-the-door”, where it might be helpful.

      The October 2011 Scientific American also had an interesting cover article about “Warped by dark matter”, which is worthy of a mention.  The article, starting on page 38, by Leo Blitz, covers a twist to the shape of the Milky Way.  I would offer that, as well as holding our galaxy’s arms together, simple electromagnetism can also produce the warped shape of our galaxy, and not need to call upon dark matter to do the job.

      According to this article, it is possible that this warp-shaping varies over time [oscillates], and is cyclical.  The C-R theory could agree with that possibility, just not that it was the influence of dark matter acting upon the galaxies, via gravity.

      Not one experiment has ever shown any indication that anything like dark matter exists.  Mainstream science is using dark matter as a simple fix for the expectations of their theories, to correct the errors which should have been obvious [that those theories don’t fit reality].

      I hope to expand upon that idea in the next blog, and still get to the C-R theory’s take on why the multiverse is not needed, either.

      This blog was to have been October’s blog, but I goofed-off enough so that this had to wait until the beginning of November.

      I was going to celebrate the 36,000^th visitor’s arrival to this web-site, but I also delayed long enough that we are now just over the 37,000^th visitor’s arrival, too.

      Thanks to all who have visited, I hope you can find new ways to appreciate our universe.  If you do not believe the C-R theory yet, that is expected, too.  I trust that I can provide some fodder for arguments that many have never considered.  If you cannot change your lifetime’s viewpoint in one reading, that is normal, too.

      I would simply try to ask for a fair evaluation, with an open mind.  If I can start the process of changing your thinking, that is progress.  If I can help you to learn more about our fascinating home (this universe), then that is a good thing, too.  Nature has left abundant clues, hidden everywhere, in plain sight, for ALL to see.  If I can help you to understand HOW the pieces all fit-together, that is my goal.

      My biggest claim is, our universe MAKES SENSE, once you understand HOW to look at it, and WHAT you are seeing.  If YOU can use some of this information and speculation from the C-R theory to understand it better, then we all benefit.  There IS much more left to learn, and to understand.

      There are many reports with items that may make more sense when combined with many other observations.  If you can contribute to the overall understanding, that would be great.

      Please feel free to disagree with the C-R theory, or to build upon it and try to improve it further.  If you do enjoy it, please let others know, and recommend it to them.

      Expect to need to return more than once to fully grasp these ideas.

Until the next blog,

Jerry Reynard.

By the time this blog is posted, we may have had our 35,000^th recorded visitor to this web site.  Thank you to all who visit, and expecially to those who regularly return, to understand this theory better.

FOUND: The Reynold’s Layer, in our Milky-Way galaxy, and some nearby galaxies, too.

      I was reading an interesting article about what is currently known-about our Milky-Way galaxy, in the September, 2011 issue of Astronomy magazine.  In this article, by 3 authors, I found a mention, starting on page 30, that an astronomer, Ronald Reynolds, already knew about a 6,000 lightyear thick layer of ionized hydrogen gas that exists in our galaxy’s arms.  Ronald Reynolds detected this layer back in 1993, and since then, other nearby galaxies have also been measured as having very similar, ionized-gas-rich areas.

      The optical, ultraviolet emissions from the gas, in the Reynolds layer, places it around the 8,000 K temperature range, [other articles state from 4,000 to 10,000K] which is quite a bit warmer than the cold-dark vacuum that had been expected in a galaxy’s arms, in our earlier cosmology.  Further above this layer, much hotter ionized gasses, although more tenuous in their density and pressure, but in the million degree plus temperature range, are measured out from the galactic plane.

      What is even better, [for the C-R theory], when searching-out more information about that phenomenon, I ran into yet another article with an even nicer “gift” for the C-R theory.  It seems that, when measuring the arrival time of pulses from distant pulsars, the high energy photons arrived here, on earth, before the lower energy photons from the same pulses.  According to that article, the cause of that “pulse dispersion” was mentioned to be, that to cause that effect, those pulses must have travelled through AN ELECTRON RICH media.  (The emphasis added was mine, but the quote came from)

 see [ www.wtnnews.com/articles/577/ Check the end of the 7^th paragraph]

      That I know-of, no standard theory celebrates things like that, and only one theory that I am aware of, [the C-R theory], wants and needs claims of excess “free” electrons filling the space between the galaxies.  I included the link to that article above, and have interested home-readers note the last part of the paragraph beginning ..  “The photons or light particles that Reynolds was looking for...”

A GOOD WEEK of GENEROUS GIFT GIVING [all for the C-R theory’s enjoyment]

      Considering the article about the Reynold’s layer, and the article about pulsar pulse-dispersion indicating that those pulses had travelled through “an electron-rich media”, that was a pretty-good week of finding nature’s “gifts” to support the C-R theory ideas.  Note that both of these phenomena are not wanted by any standard theories, but both of these phenomena can-be embraced, cherished, and treasured by the C-R theory, as supporting evidence.

      Both phenomena were known-about long ago, but are “new and fresh” to the C-R theory’s author.  I consider two such “serendipitous” findings, in the same week, worthy

of mentioning as the lead section in this blog.  

      If they are thrown-in with aurorae and thunderstorms (with lightning) on every planet, and the new item, below, about Saturn and Enceladus, these are the types of electrically-related items which I cannot personally manufacture or conjure-up, but which keep “crawling-out-of-the-woodwork” {an expression of items found by accident, that were not looked-for deliberately}.  I suspect that these will not be the last related-items found, but represent “the tip of the iceberg” {the small but visible part of much-larger trove of hidden items, “submerged below the visible horizon”} when scientists consider the known evidence, as they determine: how this universe works.

[Electrical?] Current Events

or, Cooking your Moons with Electricity?

Pun: Ohm, Ohm on the (electric) range

      In going over some of my older magazines for this year, I came across a very interesting short article in the August 2011 issue of Astronomy magazine, on page # 17, that scientists have found yet another case of an electrical current between a large planet and it’s {ice}-volcano-spewing moon.  NASA’s Cassini spacecraft detected an electrical current between Saturn and Enceladus, by measuring an extra ultraviolet (light) peak in Saturn’s aurora, found near Saturn’s north pole, spreading-around, and covering an area as large as 1200 km. x 400 km. (or 750 miles x 250 miles).  The spot [added over the top of the normal aurora] with the extra glow always faces towards Enceladus, as it orbits around Saturn.  The short article (in Astronomy) mentioned this information came from Nature magazine’s article in their April 21 issue by lead author Wayne Pryor of Central Arizona College in Coolidge.

      The scientists had known about the huge current, varying cyclicly, flowing between Jupiter and Io, which can measure as high as 5,000,000 amps, as Io orbits nearer to Jupiter.  (and up to 400,000 volts have been measured across the face of Io) They looked for something similar, elsewhere, but did not notice anything until they detected this additional ultraviolet light-highlight phenomenon in Saturn’s auroral ring in it’s north pole.  I consider this very good news for the C-R theory, adding yet another very large, “known-about” electrical current, discovered within our solar system. (I did not see any mention estimating how large this current was, amperage-wise.)

      I have read elsewhere that in our earth’s aurora, it can have folded Birkeland currents, measured at up to 1,000,000 amps, but that article never specified if that was for each aurora (north pole and south pole) or both, simultaneously.  The important thing is that those millions of amps detected, in all of these diverse places, start to add up, and should make it increasingly difficult to deny that something electrical is going on, quite close-to-home, in our solar system.

      That I know-of, all planets (except for Pluto, which has been demoted recently) in our solar system have been detected with an active aurora, at times.  Even a few of the larger moons have been found to display an occasional aurora, too.  (As a guess, I will predict that Pluto will be found to have an aurora, too, once our planetary probe reaches it, later in this decade.  I think it was far-away enough that we did not have sufficient resolution to see it if it occurred.)

      The current issue of Astronomy magazine for September, 2011, has a very interesting article on what is known about our Milky Way galaxy, starting on page 26. On page 30, the article mentions the “Reynold’s Layer”, a thick layer of ionized gas, discovered in 1993 by Ronald Reynolds, measuring about 8,000 K.  Further outside this layer is a thin, hot layer of gas measuring over one million degrees Celsius, with energy probably coming from a wind emerging out-of our galaxy’s hot center.

      There is also a mention of our galaxy’s halo containing some electrically-neutral gas that might be involved in high velocity gas clouds, known-about, but not yet properly explained.  All these mentions are the type of phenomena that the C-R theory is looking-for, and trying to connect-the-dots-with.  

      Articles I found elsewhere also seem to indicate a dynamic (gas) wind away from the galaxy’s center, as well as vertical “chimneys” (or holes, cleared-out, hollow-bubbles, in the galaxy’s arm’s hydrogen gas), pockets spewing fountains of gas up (from the galactic plane) away from the center, and into the thinner upper layers. {There might also be a rain of cooler, condensed gasses, returning back, down into the galaxy, in yet another flow-pattern.}

      Maybe after I can try to point-out a few hundred items similar-to this type-of information, other’s will realize that there is something electrical going-on in our galaxy, and known-about, that mainstream science is not looking-for, or expecting to be there.

HINT, when “science” tries looking for something: Find What Already Is There, and do NOT go Looking-for Dark Matter [that Isn’t There]

      Then, instead-of “not finding dark energy and dark matter”, astronomers can start acknowledging the already known-about electrical currents and magnetic fields.  The galaxy-wide electromagnetic interactions, coupled-through these items might-well explain why our galaxy’s arms seem to hold-together just fine, and be driven-around, magnetically, (similar to a fan motor), without sufficient force-contributions from normal gravity, alone.  Just estimate-in the contributions possible from the KNOWN amounts of ionized gasses, magnetic fields, or extrapolate in what amounts the fields would need to be to hold our galaxy’s arms together, rotate them around the center, without shearing the arms, or tearing them apart, and also keep the stars inside the arms confined, grouped and constrained magnetically.

      Please remember that electricity is some 10⁴⁰ times stronger than gravity, on a local scale, so we don’t need nearly as much influence from it to replace the missing gravity.

Just a coincidence, or something more?

      Earlier, on August 23, we experienced a “small” earthquake here in Washington DC.  For safety reasons, we were told to evacuate from our building, even though no damage was done to our building.  The streets were jammed with people evacuated from other nearby buildings, and most of the people were sent home early.  While that, in itself is not “remarkable”, what makes that more interesting is that I had a very vivid and memorable dream, just the day before, in the morning, before I got out of bed, prominently featuring an earthquake.  It is extremely rare for me to have any-type of vivid and extraordinary dream, much less one of any kind occurring right before I awake.  I distinctly “remember” feeling the low-frequency shaking, and recognizing it as being from an earthquake, as a part of that dream.  I thought no more about it, after I woke up, other than, I normally almost-never remember specific items or details from my dreams, and by the time I arise, the details from any-of my dreams are long-faded away and forgotten-about, or hazy at best.

      In mentioning that dream to my webmaster, he did say that, if I dreamed vividly about “any specific lottery-winning numbers”, to please let him know, right away. [only half-jokingly, though] If there is a next-time for a vivid-dream, I may be more alert to possible implications.  I cannot dismiss it as sheer coincidence, but it is certainly not a regular occurrence, that was “lucky enough” to be “statistically” prescient.  After all, a stopped clock is still perfectly correct twice every day.

      That item above was not about the theory of the universe, but was fresh from the morning [as I was writing this paragraph].  I do not know if I somehow “got tapped-in to a celestial data stream”, but the nearness of both, within 30 hours of each other, seems unlikely to be a random coincidence.  Now on to more relevant topics.

      (This next part was originally the lead section of this blog, but I relegated it to second place, and now third place, in lieu of the new items I found which can probably explain how our galaxy works, without invoking any “help” from dark matter and dark energy.)

Living Inside a Comedy-Recycling theory “brand name” Closed Universe ^C-R

(and NOT a generic Closed Universe, as expected, conceived, and defined by our competition)

The basic properties of a Closed Universe ^C-R:

      A Closed Universe ^C-R contains EXACTLY enough matter to close-off spacetime at the outer edges (the outer Schwarzschild radius).

      NOTE: If the inner volume possessed any additional mass, it would have closed-off a little-bit sooner.  As it did not close off any earlier, it waited until it’s mass was totally sufficient, then closed-off.  Once it is closed-off, it becomes a complete package, and a self-sufficient system.

      NOTE: It is not a coincidence that a Closed Universe ^C-R contains exactly enough matter at exactly the right density to close it off.  IT IS a requirement!!! Once this universe closes off, it remains sealed forever (unless it is tampered-with, from the inside, by beings who do not-yet know any better).

      NOTE: Once this universe is “sealed”, or complete, this creates a condition immediately outside, [where the escape velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of light], which prevents entry from the outside.  This same total-bending also prevents any emissions from exiting from within, but continually re-directs and deflects potential emissions back inward.  HINT: Think of the ultimate goo, or sticky-trap. {See the Neutral Zone ^C-R, for further information on this region, and the third from next paragraph}

      Just like here on earth, as gravitational curvature increases (bending or warping spacetime, and ever-so-slightly increasing the pathlength light must travel), the real-time clocking rate slows down appropriately. [That IS WHY time slows-down, when the strength of gravity increases.  Light must travel that EXTRA amount that was added-into the total path.]

      There is a MINIMUM slowdown [or the MAXIMUM time-running-rate] which only occurs at the very center.  Then, with time decreasing progressively, until the outer edges are reached, that is where full curvature is attained.  At full curvature, the escape velocity equals the speed of light.  (Everywhere, at the outer edges, in all directions, the real time rate is ZERO, as “measured” by light)

Nature’s “Storage Closet?” or: Light Gone Loopy

 or: Light (says) : Now, I’m Ticked-OFF

      Any additional mass eaten, will be stored just outside this inner region, where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.  Since photons of light cannot “travel” in this condition, (as they cannot travel at a speed above “c”), they are {unhappily} forced to “resonate in place” until the region’s escape velocity is decreased.  This effectively time-traps both light and matter, isolating and insulating them both, from ANY speed-of-light communication, interaction, knowledge, radiation, absorbtion, or emission, whatsoever.

HINT: Imagine a metronome in a parked position, where it cannot tick.

NOTE: The Second LAW of Thermodynamics CANNOT apply to this VOLUME of spacetime, as NO energy can escape or leak-away. {BANK on it!!}

CAN YOU REMAIN NEUTRAL, or WILL THIS NEW IDEA “TURN-YOU OFF”?

      Matter and energy so trapped act as if they were electrically neutral (even if they are electrically charged), and behave like they are oblivious to any other outside influences.  

      NOTE: This does make for an ideal storage-closet type of packing method.  Set it up, pack it in, and forget about it, for the time-being.  This is why the C-R theory has called this region The Neutral Zone ^C-R.  This brand-new feature is an exclusive innovation, unique to the C-R theory brand-name Black-Holes ^C-R.  Note that this condition can only be created after curvature causes the escape velocity to exceed the speed of light.

      Hence, nature must “pay-for” the entrance-ticket, “energy-mass-price”, by gathering a dense-enough mass to create a Black-Hole ^C-R.  There can be no singularity at the inside center, but the reward is to achieve an extremely useful new tool.  This NEW concept ONLY makes sense from a curvature-based gravity, and does not work, at all, if you are using a Newtonian (graviton-emission based force) type-of gravity.

      NOTE: Speed-of-light limited gravitons CANNOT pass through, or be emitted from a Neutral Zone ^C-R.  Neither can any “knowledge-of”: the inside electrical charge, the spin of the mass, or any electromagnetic energy pass through, as no “particles”, necessary for communication, can traverse-across this barrier, either.

      Second note: Curvature does pre-exist, and is maintained through the Neutral Zone ^C-R, but emits no speed-of-light based energy to do so.  Curvature is a metric-like property of spacetime itself, something more-akin to the slope of a mountain, which is caused by the varying-arrangement of the mass of the mountain, but does not change {rapidly or detectably} over real-time.  A mountain needs to emit no energy to maintain it’s slope, until the arrangement of the mass of the mountain changes.

      AUTHOR’S NOTE: For the record, I have NO IDEA WHY curvature does so, or what it’s “absolute” causative mechanism is, on a quantum-level.  I am understanding that this IS how it works, though, and that seems to produce a consistent result, and a real, useful difference in performance (of gravity).

ONLY by changing “How you think about a problem”, can YOU change “How YOU understand that problem, in a NEW way”.

      ONCE YOU can understand this difference, it easily becomes possible to sense the profound usefulness of a brand-name Black-Hole ^C-R, vs. a “generic-imposter” black hole.

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS: or,: Recycling a good answer, again.

      NOTE: I did not receive this new insight by studying the available “Newtonian” gravitational equations.  Instead, I kind-of assumed that nature would prevent any possibility of a singularity*, and then, the “curvature-based gravity” concept showed ME how it was done.  NOW I KNOW how gravity exists outside of a Black-Hole ^C-R, because gravity actually is ONLYcaused LOCALLY, and is NOT POWERED from a distant source [coupling-through or across the Schwarzschild radius, as in, coming from inside a conventional black hole].

      *I recycled my understanding of “The Ultraviolet Catastrophe”, where nature originally avoided a singularity expected by scientists in the early 1900's, and figured nature also had a good way to prevent a singularity INSIDE a (generic) black hole, if I could recycle that lesson.  The “reward”, for pursuing that path was ultimately, the Comedy-Recycling Theory. {Plus, the Black-Hole ^C-R also recycles matter and energy, so recycling played at least a double role in my understanding.}

SEE OUR brand-name, or, C-R brand name:

 --{or: TAILS of WOE or: tales of Whoa}

      AUTHOR’S ADMISSION: I do not ENJOY typing and invoking the superscript fonts for the ^C-R tailed superscripts at the end of Black-Holes and Neutral Zones, but elected to do so, to show YOU, the home-readers, the uniqueness of the concept, and to differentiate the “brand-named” objects from their “inferior” counterparts.  That may make it more difficult to have the new C-R concept catch-on elsewhere, especially IN PRINT, as other writers are much less likely to carefully and deliberately type-in the appropriate “brand-name” {trademark-like} extra superscript tails.

      I probably could have re-named those “tailed” items to something more original, but the “generic-named” concepts were already known and loved-enough to make the “C-R” re-branding concept the lesser of two evils.

      Note: This “electrically-neutralized” packing method is an extra bonus, thrown in for free, from the Comedy-Recycling theory method of understanding this universe.  What is very interesting is how these very properties come together, and are used by nature to do something both surprising and very effective, and totally unforeseen by mainstream science.

The Sky’s the Limit, or “Disguise the Limit”; we cannot tell the difference.

      SAD NOTE: The “electrical-nature” of the Black-Hole ^C-R has been so well disguised by nature, that mainstream science has totally-missed noticing this concept, and still maintains that our universe, and almost all operations inside it, are electrically neutral. Despite numerous clues to the contrary*, the charge-disguise has actually been “too-effective”.

*[See the items I moved into the beginning of this blog, now at the top, and some earlier blogs, too]

      Another property of a closed universe is that matter anywhere inside IS NOT equivalent to matter elsewhere inside this type of universe, unless both masses are situated at identical radii away from the center.  Otherwise, the matter is worth less energy (or is more slowed-down) if it is further-out to the outer edges, or is worth more energy (less curved, or path-elongated), if it resides closer-in to the center, where it can “clock-faster” or appear blueshifted to other matter.

      NOTE: Such a “positional-energy-worth” vector-modulation effectively contains outlying matter, and keeps the outermost matter from collapsing inward, because it MUST acquire more energy to be allowed to move inward.  Unless matter can acquire that energy (which is expensive, time-wise), it may not proceed inward.

      [I apologize for understanding the process this way, but that IS how I think it works.]

      However, due to electrical charge imbalances, there is some flow-mixing of the matter, but this current-streaming is limited in it’s scope.  The limited circulation provides some “refreshing” of matter and energy, and does cause some noticeable overall flow currents.

      Some of these flow currents magnetically pinch and shove the magnetic-matter around in galaxy arms, causing the characteristic spiral shape, and holding the galaxy’s arms together.  Science has mistaken this effect for the influence of the “phantom” dark matter for which there is no real evidence.

      Science is looking for a non-existent force to replace a perfectly known-about electromagnetic-field-force, which is more than adequate to cause ALL of the galaxy-holding-together needed to explain what is actually seen.  The real causative mechanism is much more mundane, and far less exotic than is dreamed-of by most cosmologists.

      What a lucky break for the C-R theory that in addition to all of the other items it straightens-out, the theory also provides a very simple causative mechanism for sufficient electrical currents to be generated across all-of-the galaxies, universe-wide. The result is a far simpler-to-understand model of how this universe works, an easy agreement with more of the known observations, without needing major (and improbable) anomalies to explain them away.

      Because our universe has always existed, and always will continue to do so, it easily explains the lack of a mass-modulation effect on the background 2.7 K. This means that the clumped masses seen do not subtract from the background temperature, and superimpose an image-imprint on it. This also explains why every direction inside our universe appears to be so similar, temperature wise, because ALL-of it, in all directions, actually is at thermal equilibrium with everywhere else, and always has been.

      Additionally, the 2.7 K background radiation is not connected in any way to a big bang’s aftermath, but is more-like the roar of a waterfall, but coming uniformly from all directions.  It is more-like the averaged-out reflected [or redirected-around] “noise” of day to day operations in this universe.  As such, the 2.7 K will never redshift (or cool-down) over time, but will remain the same.

      If one could freely wander-about inside this universe, your “local” background temperature would warm-up, as you moved out, towards the outer edges, or cool off, if you could gain enough energy to be allowed in, towards the Great Attractor, as the traveller varied his/her position as they wandered.  This will become readily apparent within the next few billion years, as humanity develops the technology to travel-about and report back their findings, but it might not be as apparent, now, in a realtime, earthbound, single observation-location.

      NOTE: A billion lightyear change in your observation-location-position should easily confirm this, but that is not likely within the foreseeable future.

EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE, but not the SIZE-of YOUR UNIVERSE

      Since our universe is not expanding at an expanding rate, no driving (dark) energy source is needed, and conservation of energy will once-again be respected instead of continually violated.

      Since the Big Bang is no longer needed, neither is the ridiculous hyperinflation also needed to explain the overall smoothness of the contents of this universe.

      It should be considered “ironic” that as far back as scientists think they have discovered objects from the early stages of this universe, the “baby pictures” all seem to reveal full-grown adults, far more mature than the short time alotted-by the Big Bang theory can accommodate.

{A Scientific Hint:}   IF YOU WANT TO GET A “CORRECT” IDEA, DO NOT FIRST CORRECT {or re-write} YOUR OBSERVED DATA (by actually corrupting it), TO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT!!!

            or: (re)-WRITING a WRONG:

      While the increasing redshift of objects seen does indicate an increasing distance-away, almost ALL of the distant objects seen are actually “observed” at their true “real-time-rate”.  When scientists “fix” their data to correct the time-frame for the “assumed” Doppler-shift, they are actually corrupting, [spoiling], their true data, [which is gravitationally redshifted], and introducing-in {writing} the very-wrong items that make them think this universe is expanding at an expanding rate.

      Any decent professor should tell their youngest students NEVER to correct their data BEFORE they draw their conclusions from it. {Shame, Shame, Shame} To fool the whole world by doing just that has bolluxed-up the entire world’s thinking, and ruined their understanding about the true nature of this universe since 1929-1930.

      Maybe the simplest way to understand this universe is TO CHANGE the theory they use to understand it with.  Fortunately, you have come to the only site where such an easy fix is possible. {I do wish there were far more of them.}

      The universe described by the C-R theory is far easier to understand, from a human-based viewpoint, than any of the competition can match.  First of all, almost all observations are straightforward, simple, and need no correction or interpretation to evaluate.

      Our universe is a fixed size, not expanding, and definitely, not expanding at an expanding rate.  It is perfectly stable, yet dynamically interactive-enough to allow some mixing of the internal contents to keep things fresh and interesting.

      Inside a closed universe, there is a 100% probability of finding EXACTLY enough matter at exactly the right density to close-off that universe, otherwise it would not be closed-off.  NOTE: If our closed universe was larger, it would have had more matter at a lesser density.  If our closed universe had been smaller, it would have had less matter at a higher density.

      Since we see an increasing amount of redshift in all directions, something must be causing that.  In our universe’s case, it is the gravitational curvature (or increasing bending of the time-frame of spacetime) which “stretches-out” spacetime, and requires light “there” to travel a longer (or stretched-out) distance to cover the same real distance, which, in effect, slows down time. [HINT: Think of blowing-up a balloon, and taking longer to travel the same balloon’s surface area as it’s surface expands.  It is the SAME balloon, but the trip across it’s surface takes longer when it is inflated.) As light travels in more-curved space, it appears to slow-down.

      We get exactly the same effect here, on earth, when an atomic clock is lowered into a more intense gravitational field, but on a far-wimpier, minuscule scale.  Whereas we lose time by about 1 part in 10^-16th, here on earth, for every meter’s difference in elevation (down), nearer the outermost edges of this universe, the time-loss effect is measured in a percentage of real time-slowdown nearer to 80-90% in distant galaxies and quasars.  HINT: By this mode of thinking, the 2.7 K background radiation is the reflected, averaged-out, slowed-down remnant of light (bent back around, sent to us again, rather than emitted-out from this universe).  

      The 2.7 K is NOT in any-way related-to the cooled-down Big Bang leftovers, because the Big Bang never occurred.  Therefore, no remnant of the explosion is needed.  The 2.7K thus does not prove the Big Bang at all.

      The easiest way to check to see that this is so is to also look, simultaneously, for one, and only one inner region, where matter appears to be blueshifted to us, because matter (and energy) there is running faster than here, on earth.

      By some (non-amazing) “coincidence”, we do see just that, too.  In every study I am aware-of, enough mass has never been found at The Great Attractor to suck our mass, from here on earth, to rush-in towards that region, from that great of a distance-away. A far simpler answer is that both the redshifts, and the blue shift are BOTH caused by non-linear time-rates, and simple positional differences.

      (Incidentally, matter on the other side of the Great Attractor is also not seen to be rushing inward at a similar rate as from earth, as might be expected if The Great Attractor was actually ATTRACTING anything.)

      My argument is: If increasing nearness to the earth’s mass slows-down time, here on earth, is it not reasonable that, for a [gravitationally] totally closed universe, time rates should also vary, internally, BY LOCATION? Is it not unreasonable to claim that mass here, on earth, does so, but the entire collective mass of our universe DOES NOT?

      I would humbly maintain that it is far easier to FIX our understanding of this universe, than to accept ALL of the ridiculous anomalies associated with the Big Bang, collectively.  I cannot help but gloat smilingly when I think of how easy it is to do away with all of the unreasonableness of the Big Bang’s necessary corrections to make it work-out.

      The principle of Occams’ razor states that, the theory with the most reasonable, and fewest assumptions, is most likely to be correct.  I welcome any home-reader to stack up the simple points, and the unreasonable points, between the C-R theory, and the Big Bang, and judge for yourself where the most unreasonable points lie.  Let us place a possible guide below, and ask you to use your intuition about which alternatives sound most sensible, and implausible, by YOUR standards of reasoning.

{Place chart here, after I’ve created it}

      Many thanks for visiting.  I hope you can understand my concerns, and start to understand the C-R theory and see why it really makes the most sense out of the observations, without any necessary corrections.  These ideas are too new, and too far from what conventional theory understands.  I do not expect anyone to warm-up to these ideas upon your first encounter.  Expect to need multiple re-visits, and extended re-thinking time, before you can accept these simple new changes.

      I encourage any first time visitors to slowly re-consider what you now believe, and welcome your skepticism.  Feel free to personally research any of the points I bring-up, and use the many illustrations and drawings on the side column to fill-in your understanding.

      Please use your innate, common sense, and ask yourself if the C-R theory point-of-view is not simpler to understand, if you can accept the arguments.  Please test these ideas whenever possible, against every new discovery, and/or, re-read modern articles, and note every mention of electrical current, magnetic fields, roving gas-clouds, polarized light, high-energy cosmic rays, and weigh their presence as compared to the non-discovery of dark energy and dark matter.

      If it is nonsense that a small, bowling ball-like object, would be constantly expanding, accelerating it’s acceleration outward, and increasing it’s mass daily, without the slightest trace of an energy source, should it not be “increasingly improbable” nonsense when those very same properties are applied to our everyday universe, and accepted with a straight faced sincerity?

      If science is not consistent in it’s applications, is it worthwhile? HINT: If you accept the C-R theory, it still is.  Perhaps if science did not so obviously mis-judge the age, origin, and time-varying-nature of our universe, it could be restored to a more “fully-respected” mode by the general public.

      PREVIEW: I hope to tackle some of the nonsense of the Multi-verse in the next blog, unless something more-interesting comes up before then.

      Jerry Reynard, September 5th, 2011

Welcome to the 33,000^th visitor, and to the 33,333^rd visitors, and all others, too.  I wanted to note those milestones for this web site, before starting in on this month's main topic, FOUNDATIONS.

Foundations:

One of the most significant differences in the C-R theory is a "Foundation" issue. The C-R theory states that every Black-Hole ^C-R has a completely closed-off region inside.  This is a critical difference, to understand just how nature exploits this issue, and uses this inside region almost like a platform, or a foundation, to build the necessary part of the Black-Hole ^C-R, the region where spacetime is turned-off, or inactivated.

I would like to re-explain this concept yet again, to try to convey the real advantages to using this method, and show why I think nature has taken this approach already.

I am trying to help new arrivals to this web site understand just how profound of a difference the Black-Hole ^C-R has vs. a standard black hole.  The start of the understanding begins with just why a Black-Hole ^C-R cannot simply collapse into a singularity, as it's more famous counterpart (the standard "generic" black hole) is supposed to.

To start the appreciation process, let us imagine taking any famous structure built by mankind, then imagine throwing-away or removing the foundation.  Any monument or structure begins anchored to it's base, and depends upon it for stability, and to share forces generated when storms and stresses threaten it.  With a good foundation, those stresses are channeled and shared throughout the building, as the original architect anticipated.  While there have always been situations later-on that exceeded anything imagined by the builder, a generous safety margin sometimes holds the structure together, and minimizes damage.

If we deliberately remove the base any object was built-upon, we head for imminent danger.  There are very few manmade structures that could survive normal, everyday stresses without their foundations remaining intact (or some temporary bracing, if that structure is being moved or transported intentionally).  Most architects would cringe if we took their creations and threw-away their bases, leaving the structure unsupported and unanchored.

In the conventional black hole, however, there is absolutely NOTHING, structure-wise, upon which to build but the flimsiest of voids, or the emptiest of vacuums.  This arrangement continues until one reaches the centermost singularity, an unimaginably small region of near-infinite density, where newly-arrived matter and energy meet-up with all of the original matter-contents from the starting mass.  No equation on earth can account-for the processes that are expected to go on there, and no lab in this universe (that we know-of) can test or duplicate those "imagined" conditions.

All that is suspected is that the Newtonian-type attraction has yielded, or finally ceased, after that attraction has overcome the internal structural integrity of protons, neutrons, [and maybe the electrons too], or their internal sub-constituents (like quarks).

Where the difficulty should lie in this scenario, is, how can such an arrangement as the singularity convey back-out the knowledge-of {or the expression-of} the mass of the innermost contents, or does it?

This is where the real advantages of the C-R theory process come into play.  Start off with a mass, just a few atoms shy of complete-criticality, or almost-at the tipping point, with almost enough mass at almost the proper density to produce almost enough curvature (or gravity) to close-off that mass, or have the escape velocity equal (then exceed) the speed-of-light outside of that mass.

One of the most interesting items about this condition is that, at the center of that mass, the curvature is minium, or zero.  Only as you add-on mass outward from the center do you increase the overall curvature.  It is only at the outside edges, or right at the surface, that the curvature is MAXIMUM.  If you can understand this, and grasp it well, you can start to understand why this is a good idea.

In the curvature-based gravity concept, it is where the curvature is greatest, that the largest effect is created, or active {the light green area}.  The effect is still active (although fadingly intense) as we approach the center.  NOTE: The maximum action from curvature [but NO emissions] WILL occur at the outside edges, but never at all, at the center.

Now, when we throw on the final few atoms, to increase the internal mass to exactly where the escape velocity will EQUAL the speed-of-light, we would note that the greatest curvature, and the maximum external effect, would only occur at the outermost edges, while everything further inside remains virtually unaffected when the final few atoms are added.

When we cause gravity in this manner, {by the effect of curvature upon matter}, we maintain our full inside base intact, to create the closed-off conditions at ONLY the outer edges, now "OFFICIALLY" a Schwarzschild radius, after the curvature equals "c".

Personal Note: The C-R theory attempts to avoid the conventional use of the label: "event horizon", to also describe this outermost barrier or boundary.  In conventional thinking, where the outer appearance shows only the fading and dimming light, trailing-off as something external approaches, then enters-in, the external appearance only relies upon the "leftovers of light".

In a practical sense, by studying this leftover-light [conventionally, the event horizon], the appearance will not gain any good understanding.  For this reason, the C-R theory recommends discarding any ideas mentioning or utilizing the appearance, as seen from the "event horizon".  This suggests returning to the consideration of the original math description of Schwarzschild radius.  That situation is more-like a marker, or a city's proud "Welcome to ..." sign, denoting a real change in jurisdiction, or announcing a "new set of rules" to be governed-by, once you cross-over (in)to that side. When you are officially "inside a Black-Hole ^C-R", some of the old rules just do not apply.

The nicest part of this "new" arrangement is, only the "lawless" region, where the escape velocity is greater than the speed-of-light, would be unfamiliar territory to us. Immediately inside this volume, there is a completely intact, but fully closed-off region, where ALL of the science, physics, and math rules we ARE familiar with totally APPLY.

What was necessary in understanding why that inside volume could not collapse, was to show how the process benefits both the inside and outside.  Only by establishing that "Foundation" [on the inside] could we create those internal conditions necessary to bring the escape velocity over lightspeed at the Schwarzschild radius.  This volume becomes the Neutral Zone ^C-R, in the C-R theory, and the properties arise BECAUSE OF the escape velocity EXCEEDING the speed-of-light.

By preventing electromagnetic energy from "cruising-around" normally, (at lightspeed), and trapping it inside a resonance-well, where it technically "resonates" at lightspeed [but in another, "hidden" dimension], it cannot communicate knowledge effectively out-of the Black-Hole ^C-R.  The knowledge-of the pent-up electrical charge cannot just travel anywhere, like go from any "point A" to any other "point B".  Nature "jails" both matter and the photons, or light-energy, inactivating them, preventing any form of interaction.

This "protective custody" concentrates everything incoming, and packs it in, reestablishing order (entropy) by this arrangement.  This "forces" a restoration of entropy, by increasing the orderliness of everything, while establishing the mechanism whereby gravity can later-on be overcome, if those contents become "de-contorted-enough" to be freed.

This escape process might be enhanced by a close encounter from one Black-Hole ^C-R nearing another Black-Hole ^C-R, if the averaged-out volume-of the curvature directly-between the two entities slips again below lightspeed.  This starts the process, where the instantaneous explosion can release energies exceeding any known process that mainstream science understands.  Think of mass and energy trapped over millennia or eons, suddenly freed-up.

While this sudden freeing of the contents would be totally useless from a conventional black hole's electrically neutral diet, the uniqueness of the C-R theory concept declares that the Black-Hole ^C-R predominantly captures only the protons and neutrons, while allowing virtually all of the electrons to escape the capture process. This is where the true "genius" of nature's design (which I am uncovering, {or speculating-upon}, but not creating from scratch) benefits from a systemic approach. All of the individual pieces of the C-R theory process are useless individually, but priceless, when they are combined, as a group, into a fully functioning part of a complete system.

I can only emphasize, this is why this particular mechanism was chosen (by nature or by the Creator).  By connecting the smaller parts to appreciate a complete system in operation, the interconnections become more obvious, and the reasons for those choices become more necessary. (I did not create these ideas, I believe I was allowed to understand them.  I then felt obligated to share them, for free, just in case they are true or correct.)

What I am trying to do is to present these items in a logical manner, and describe them in such a way that if nature has truly chosen this method, that indications of this system should "leak-out" in known observations.  

(Remember that the events, as seen from earth, and as described in the available literature, are presented by people who were not brought-up to think in the C-R theory way, and who have no interest in supporting it.  The events are described as if they fit-in to the current mode of thinking, and are part of those simple processes.  Extra electrons and stored-up positive charges do not fit in to these world-views, so they are not expecting any such things to be occurring.)

I would hope to alert scientists to things that might help to establish whether the C-R theory is credible, or imaginary.  I am trying to show where to look, and the types of things to give new significance to the C-R theory in everyday operation.  Are these ideas plausible, and does nature already offer some direct evidence that Black-Holes ^C-R rather than fusion, provide the majority of the energy interactions we observe?  If we were to deliberately look-for indications of a C-R theory-like energy creation alternative, could it be ruled-in, or ruled-out?

By presenting these ideas publicly, I hope to alert many people to this alternative view, and give the C-R theory a chance to sink or swim.

Further comments on the C-R theory

Here are a few items I meant to comment on earlier, but forgot-about at that time. There was a blog column in Astronomy magazine, commenting upon the confidence that science has over things that are taught and believed.  Most of what is currently taught about the conventional black hole has a very low confidence level, since there is virtually no way to test any of that which is accepted, but not provable.

While I also cannot prove the C-R theory, what I can do is recommend things to look for which demonstrate that a C-R theory-like process is going-on, and there is ample evidence already known-about (but successfully ignored, or not connected-in).

There is an abundance of electrical activity occurring almost everywhere within this solar system, yet science thinks that space is mostly electrically neutral, and that charge imbalances will average-out, or spread-out without accumulating.  A really good clue is the flux-tube current, occurring cyclically, between Jupiter and Io.  It can be as high as 5,000,000 amps (with each amp representing 602,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrical charges EVERY SECOND) which should clue-in you home-readers that hmmm, maybe there is something electrical going-on.

Mind you, this is only one instance, among ALL known electrical-like phenomenon, like aurorae, lightning (thunderstorms), ion-belts, magnetic fields, solar winds (accelerating as it LEAVES the sun's vicinity).  Somehow science misses this "evidence" of mega-electrical activity, right under our "collective" noses, because it does not fit in to their paradigm of "How this solar system works".

I'll give you a small hint, these electrical charges do not just occur on their own, but they have a source {or many sources}.  If we simply suppose that activity like this occurs outside the solar system, too, we have a significant amount of activity.

When science is looking for mysterious dark matter, to hold together the galaxy arms, they ignore the most obvious answer, that electromagnetism holds together the arms, and drives the rotation, too.  But, since there is not supposed to be that much electrical activity (or magnetism), science is looking for non-existent "dark matter" to provide the missing force of whatever is needed for what gravity does not.

The C-R theory states that at least some of the stars themselves release tremendous quantities of excess electrons, released by the Black-Holes ^C-R powering most stars.  After all, would not you use the most efficient energy-releasing mechanism, if YOU were designing a universe.  Fusion obtains 0.7% of the available energy from hydrogen, whereas the Black-Hole ^C-R can extract about 50% of the rest-mass energy.  

Additionally, instead of choking-off the fusion when the mix of the hydrogen to helium drops below an optimal percentage, the drop-off of hydrogen to helium ratio by half does not "poison" the gravitational-energy mix, or shift it into another gear.  This could make Black-Hole ^C-R powered star-lifetimes last 100 times as long as a fusion-powered star.  NOTE: If you have the patience (and the ability) to wait around that long, you can check it yourself {or disprove it, if it does not}.

Unfortunately, in our fast-paced society, there is nothing vaguely resembling that amount of tolerance for a delay in waiting for the correct answers.  That puts the C-R theory at a competitive disadvantage, to conclusively determine the correct answer, right now.

That is why I have tried to list a few of those known objects or phenomenon which can give the home reader some idea that there are many C-R theory-like processes going-on, and already written-about, but that the indications of those results have been reported by individuals with no "expectation" of something like that happening.  That makes it a bit more difficult to be truly objective.  What one needs to do it to look for massive electrical-charge displacement in action, and summarize those type-of results.

One of the rare few places where extreme electrical (magnetic) activity takes place is in magnetars.  The known magnetars all have enormous magnetic fields, far above the wimpy "1 million Teslas" practical limit experienced in labs here on earth.  When attempting to deal with higher continuous magnetic fields, our labs experience catastrophic failures in our measuring equipment.  This limits the experimental results that can be replicated on earth to a really puny level, as compared to the desired levels.

One could also try to investigate the levels of polarized light in this universe. Polarized light is everywhere, and comes from every direction.  What should surprise scientists is the level of polarization known about.  Polarized light can only be caused by huge electrical fields, or strong magnetic fields.

Has anyone added-up the amounts of polarized light, and then announced the amounts of electrical currents, or magnetic fields required to polarize just what we know about?

I will admit that I do not know how many additional stars out there have a double-negative ionization of their photospheres, like our sun does.  If one considers that for heating hydrogen gas up to over 6,000° C, our sun's photosphere's hydrogen atoms each pick-up an additional electron, instead of shedding their electrons as the gas is heated.

This might not be anomalous IF our sun is powered by a Black-Hole ^C-R, which is continually emitting excess electrons, and the photosphere is where it shows-up. Possibly, there is another intelligent alternative to explain this anomaly.  One thing for certain is that I have just not imagined-it, but that this anomaly exists.  It certainly has not been widely touted as something of interest.

One final item I noticed this last week was that Science News, July 2, 2011 covered an announcement from Robert Quimby of Caltech that there is possibly a new class of a type of supernova discovered.  What is most interesting is that scientists have ruled out the 3 leading energy producers for most supernovae, including radioactive decay of the remnants.  That may be good for the C-R theory, because it has a new type of energy producer (the sudden freeing-up of confined protons and neutrons).  Interestingly, most of the light is in the ultraviolet band.  Apparently, no trace of hydrogen is seen either.

I will keep reading on this new find, and see if it appears to fit in to a C-R theory-like mold, or is something not (yet) compatible.

That should do it for this blog.  I hope to have more items for next time, and cover some more basic areas in a new manner.  Again, feel free to use the contact the author section from the home page to contact me, if you have suggestions or questions. Thank you all for visiting, and re-read sections if you need to to see how the whole theory fits-in to a working system.

Until I can convince enough others of the validity of these ideas, and get them to help to share these concepts elsewhere, the C-R theory web pages will be your only source for these ideas.  If I can find similar ideas elsewhere that can help the home-readers understand these new concepts, or to illustrate the points, I will pass those along, too.

July 11, 2011

Blog for June, 2011

I had been wanting to do this blog for a while, and I am finally getting around to it. My webmaster found a tremendous quote, which summarizes the C-R theory's dilemma.

Here is the quote:

"The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds."
  --John Maynard Keynes

Where the problem originates is that I believe the multitude is wrong.  I cannot prove it, but I can suggest where to look, what to look for, how to measure it, and the general indications of a C-R theory Black-Hole ^C-R in the vicinity.

The C-R theory will try to suggest why nature is so fond of Black-Holes ^C-R, and finds them so useful.  I would like to cover, in the most ironic way, the major ideas that only the C-R theory seems to have noticed.  If science were truly objective, these items should have been obvious enough to have been noted long ago.

Where the irony lies is that the real amateurs, and newcomers will probably gain the ability to grasp these new concepts from the C-R theory long before the professionals will accept these ideas. This stems more because they are not as firmly welded to the older Newtonian ideas about gravity, and are more ready to accept the curvature-based ideas.  They can appreciate the benefits to this new way of thinking, and are more willing to accept the evidence that is already known about.

To help "sell" the C-R theory ideas, I thought I would try to state them simply, and try to allude to their simplicity, to make it more obvious that there could be (and SHOULD BE) a connection that nature is keen to exploit.

One of the first "obvious" items that science has totally overlooked is that a Black-Hole ^C-R selects and attracts it's dinner BY MASS.  All Black-Holes ^C-R eat the heavier subatomic particles, like the proton and the neutron, while the quantum "iffiness", or nature of the electrons spreads them out sufficiently that the electrons escape, and flee the vicinity.  The electrons "fluffiness" allows them to remain far enough away from the nucleus to flee, and avoid becoming dinner.

What I imagine is that the electron-cloud can escape-away as long as 50.0...01% of the electron-cloud remains active, outside the Schwarzschild radius, and no more than 49.9...9% enters in.  This is one case where the C-R theory supports quantum tunnelling, in the case of the electrons escaping as part of the menu-entree.

When beams of matter are seen leaving the Black-Hole's ^C-R vicinity, The C-R theory maintains it is the "rejected" electrons grouping together magnetically to flee, in spite of each electrons natural repellence for their fellow free-electrons.  Because they bunch together and collimate to over 99.99% of the speed of light, this gives the whole group the ability to punch-out and get away.

The next area is where the C-R theory has the most profound differences with the mainstream.  The real "business-end" of the Black-Hole ^C-R is immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  This is THE ONLY interesting portion of the Black-Hole ^C-R, and the only volume of spacetime where the total gravitational energy is MINIMUM.  If you can imagine, the escape velocity in that volume [the Neutral Zone ^C-R] is at or above the speed-of-light.  What this accomplishes is it "traps" the particles and photons in their individual "resonance-wells" from which they are incapable of escaping.

While this would be catastrophic by most understandings, this is what prevents any external knowledge of the trapped particles from "leaking out" regardless of the amount of trapped charges present.  This is also the prime reason that the Black-Hole ^C-R exists, to trap, collect, concentrate, and refresh matter and energy in a recoverable manner.

A new note here for 2011: The Black-Hole ^C-R does such a magnificent job of "camoflaging" or hiding the trapped electrical charges, that science has completely missed that this is going-on.  Science believes that: Since gravity "escapes" from a Black-Hole ^C-R, so will knowledge of stored electrical charges and spinning mass.  The C-R theory states that there is a totally different mechanism to produce gravity (called curvature) and to express "speed-of-light" based forces.  The "speed-of-light' based forces are suppressed, or turned-off [But never, NEVER eliminated].

Although it is not "standard science": From the millions of Black-Holes ^C-R suspected to exist, one would wonder just why nature is so fond of them.  If they were as useless as standard theory suspects, that would make a "fool" of nature, big-time, for using so many.

On the other hand, if the Black-Hole ^C-R was designed to fulfill a purpose that could be handled (as well) by no other object within this universe, nature would need a very large number.

The C-R theory idea is that Black-Holes ^C-R are essential "tools" of nature to recycle matter and energy.  The Black-Hole ^C-R stores-up the protons and neutrons in an electrically neutral manner.  The important point is that, once the Black-Hole ^C-R is primed, any external disturbance may suffice to trigger the escape mechanism.

Two tests, to show that this might be occurring would be to look for "excess positive charge" accumulations in supernovae, and excess electrons shed outside of every "dining" Black-Hole ^C-R.  Where this is apparent, the supernova expansion may continue for thousands of years beyond the time where a simple expansion (driven only by the initial heat) would have cooled down.

While I cannot say that this happens in all supernovas, there are some known that do have excessive positive charges. (Place links here)

Another critical area to the proper role of understanding is that, in the C-R theory Black-Hole ^C-R, at the exact center of the Black-Hole ^C-R curvature is at a minimum, and the potential energy of matter there is MAXIMUM, or, essentially identical to matter lying far from the Black-Hole ^C-R.  This compares to the hypothesized black hole, with a near-infinitely dense singularity.  Science believes the exact opposite of what is more likely to be true.

I will cover another aspect of the Black-Hole ^C-R plan in the next section of this blog.

I would also like to cover an article by Steve Nadis (which was the featured cover story, on the cover, too) titled Beyond the Event Horizon.  I read it in the June, 2011 Discover Magazine, (with the text starting on page 29) concerning new ideas from Andrew Hamilton, a professor at Colorado University (Boulder).

The article deals with his insights into the interior of a conventional black hole, derived from supercomputer simulations and from years of study.  There are some very close similarities to his thinking, and that of the C-R theory.  His equations do seem to recognize the two Schwarzschild radii, the outer one (also thought-of as the event horizon), and another one, somewhat further inside.

According to this article, his computer simulations expect that, at the inner Schwarzschild radius, the energy level is near infinite for matter residing inside.  He believes that some matter may experience a time-like reversal while actually journeying towards the singularity, whereas other matter may experience ever increasing energy accelerations on the way to the singularity*. (Equations simply DO NOT understand, and cannot handle what happens when the escape velocity is OVER the speed-of-light.)

This is one area where the C-R theory expects something completely different.  In this special zone [the Neutral Zone ^C-R], because the escape velocity is above the speed-of-light, this neutralizes all electromagnetic activity.  What happens is that this entire inside region IS already forced-into a minimum-energy configuration since light cannot move-about freely.  Because of this, the expected activity level (by mainstream science) is literally undetectable.  While matter and energy both "exist", they are essentially shut-down, unresponsive, turned-off, jailed, and confined.

The C-R theory therefore expects that this whole region, between the two Schwarzschild radii, acts something like a one-way piggy bank, where nature safely keeps everything that was swallowed, compactly stored.  Because of the extremely-ionized character of the protons (unaccompanied by their original electrons), if any external disturbance can "shift that level of curvature" downward [out of the Neutral Zone ^C-R], that will allow the internal contents to start to explosively escape. (Hint: Think of a "Jack-in-the-box", opening-up after reaching that certain "POP".)

The lowest-possible-energy (and real-time) level imposed-upon this region makes this region the ideal "tool" for restoring entropy, as re-concentrating both {while emitting nothing} forces both matter and energy to be 100% thermodynamically efficient.  This is the second part of nature's grand strategy for Black-Holes ^C-R (as compared to black holes, which only end-up with "enlarged" singularities).

It is this practical "ecological" use of the Black-Hole ^C-R, and the dual-use of the existing properties of matter to accomplish a second, vital mission (restoring entropy, and recovering 100% of everything eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R) that convinced me that I had uncovered something interesting.

NOTE: That new understanding was 100% dependent on a new understanding the role of curvature, and how it allowed "gravity" to be felt outside the Black-Hole ^C-R, while radiating absolutely nothing.

Interestingly, at the end of an article in the newest Scientific American Magazine, June, 2011 issue, (and also their cover story), titled Living in a Quantum World (starting on page 38), by Vlatko Vedral, is on the Quantum-nature of large-scale objects.  Near the very end, the possibility was also recognized (or suggested that it might be the case) that gravity IS NOT a true force, on an equal playing-field with electricity.

To quote excerpts from next to last paragraph on page 43: (the) "... possibility is that gravity is not a force in its own right...  If true, it would demote gravity from the status of a fundamental force..." While not fully embracing the C-R theory concept that gravity is an after-effect (or a leftover residue) from the property of curvature changing the energy-carrying capacity of mass, caused by curvature "modulating" the mass'es capacity, allowing it to absorb (or incorporate more real-time) energy, or releasing energy (as acceleration, or kinetic energy) when a mass is dropped into "a slower-timeframe", and forcing-out a small amount of stored energy.

While conventional theories conclude that we now live in "a golden age of galaxies", which will fade-away with time, the C-R theory concludes that our universe has always looked approximately like it looks, right now, and it always maintains that consistency. [I will not fill-in that idea right now, in this blog.  It has been covered in earlier blogs.]

The Discover article goes on to suggest that Prof. Hamilton will try to tackle the expected difficulties further inside, in the (conventional) black hole.  This is where I think the C-R theory insights from the last 30 years might come in very useful.  Further inside, the C-R theory expects that there is a fully closed-off region, exactly critical, with exactly enough matter, at exactly the right density, to close-off this section.

This is not a coincidence, but it is the reason that the Black-Hole ^C-R is fully-established in the first place.  It is this completely-closed region (or volume) at the center that establishes the complete [100% of lightspeed] curvature to make the Neutral Zone ^C-R possible, and all of the additional mass consumed only adds-in to the Neutral Zone ^C-R.  This C-R theory Neutral Zone ^C-R is sort-of the business end of the Black-Hole ^C-R, but it is also the same region suspected by Prof. Hamilton's simulations.  The results are totally different, but the parallels are encouraging.  If he is willing to accept my thinking, I could show him just how simple the real answer is.

HINT: Our "complete universe" is just such an Active Zone ^C-R, or IS an inside of a (very large sized) Black-Hole ^C-R.  All of it's observable properties suggest that this is the case, already, (and always has been so, although that part is not as obvious).

Andrew Hamilton's approach is much closer to the C-R theory's view, and that is why I might be able to help him realize a very simple solution, with testable answers (that have already been passing my tests for 30 years).  His goals (to learn the true nature of a Black-Hole ^C-R) are the same as those of the C-R theory, although our methods are totally different.

What I would hope to guide him to is a totally new (to him) way to approach the Black-Hole ^C-R, by understanding the situation it is in.  While this method does not rely upon the equations for insight (which is better, because those equations simply fail to cover any situation wherever the escape velocity is over lightspeed), there is a simplicity and straightforwardness to the C-R theory's approach that makes it intuitive, and testable.

Since his ideas are also featured on videos he made for a local science museum, he has produced some videos simulating what the inside of the (conventional) black hole is supposedly like.  I hope I can eventually find someone capable of producing a simulation for what I imagine the Neutral Zone ^C-R would be like. [Boring, but necessary to understand how "being-forced" into doing absolutely NOTHING could prove useful to nature.]

The article in Discover writes about his desire to find others with potential insights, and I figure that I may well be the only one of those few who thinks he has a new answer.  I would at least like to pitch my ideas to him, one-on-one, and try to guide him to a new line of reasoning.  I would hope I could build upon the ideas he has already understood that virtually no other current professional has championed.  It would be a much shorter jump for him to convert-over-to (or try a test-drive-of) the C-R theory ideas.  Who better (than me) to advocate it's potential usefulness and cover the path of reasoning that suggests why this is a good idea.

The C-R theory is the only theory I know-of that wants evidence of excess electrons to be found associated with every Black-Hole's ^C-R diet.  That I have publicly stuck-my-"C-R theory's" neck on the chopping-block, to live-or-die with the results, if excess electrons are not found in every feeding Black-Hole's ^C-R vicinity, might demonstrate my sincerity of beliefs.  I have found enough known instances where this seems to be the case that it goes beyond a random coincidence.

I think I am the happiest person on the planet about the two, 25,000 light-year-tall lobes filled with excess electrons, and possessing 100,000 supernova's worth of energy, found last-year above and below our galaxy's central bulge.  This may well be nature's best gift to the C-R theory, evidence-wise.  (I have not yet seen any other theory overjoyed with the results of that new finding.)

One of the recent specials on cable-tv stated that scientists now believe there are at least 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R stuffed-in to the central 3 light-years of our galaxy's center.  I know of no other theory which expects that one Black-Hole ^C-R (representing matter already at it's gravitational-minimum-energy) will not eat another Black-Hole ^C-R, much less gravitationally attract it.  This is completely-opposite of the Newtonian expectations, where every large mass gravitationally attracts every other large mass, ALL of the time.

Once one realizes that matter at (a gravitational) minimum-energy has already lost everything lose-able, so that no further energy loss is possible, one realizes the Newtonian view MUST BE WRONG in this particular instance.  (Hint: Can an ice cube already at absolute zero further cool-off another ice cube also at absolute zero, no. They are already BOTH as low, temperature-wise, as is possible.) Only after one thinks in this manner, can one start to appreciate the difference in expectations from a Black-Hole ^C-R, as a "container-of: a minimum-energy region in space-time", vs. a black hole, where gravity continually surrenders energy based only upon position, with no accountability ever placed upon a source, or a host to provide that energy.

This is one of the KEY differences in the C-R theory's expectations.  Matter inside a Black-Hole ^C-R IS ALREADY AT MINIMUM energy.  It cannot go any lower.

This region is where conventional {Newtonian} equations expect huge energies to be available, continually liberated from matter, almost like an M.C. Escher waterfall, or a perpetual-energy machine.

This is why there are no "celestial-fireworks" noted when Black-Holes ^C-R approach each other, and there are no space-rattling, dimension-shakings released (or radiated-away) when Black-Holes ^C-R merge, because they never (or very rarely) do so.  Even if they do merge, it is more like watching an ice-cube at absolute zero melt, or adding a zero to a zero (or multiplying a zero by another zero).  Your "nothing" does not change or increase by merging again and again with other "nothings".

I have been noticing this web-sites statistics that we are gaining a lot of visitors from China recently, and also from Japan a short while ago.  The site was not designed for a literal translation, in some instances, so I hope the on-line translators do it justice.  I fear that the "Comedy" portion will make no sense at all, or be total nonsense, if it is literally translated.

On the other hand, I am glad that they seem to be visiting in increasing numbers, and they are all welcome to try-to understand it.  I hope that at least some of those visitors can start to comprehend my ideas.  I do apologize that some of the ideas are too new and too different from the current thinking to catch-on (and be accepted) right away.

I would invite anyone to write-in if there are concepts you do not understand, or if you have further questions.  I keep hoping that other individuals will start to re-post, and possibly re-describe these ideas in their language, once they begin to understand what I am trying to convey.  I do try to answer sincere questions from readers, and they help me to improve my communications, once I know where common misconceptions (about my ideas) occur.

That I know of, there is no other web-site that I have found that approaches understanding a Black-Hole ^C-R in similar terms.  I continually attempt to find new ways to pass along these concepts, to show why these new ideas may be reasonable (although they may seem very strange at first).

I would agree with anyone that, by the existing text-books, the C-R ideas are absurd, and cannot occur.  Over the years of science, the books of the day are only as good as the people who write them, and they must build-upon that which they have been taught, or understood.

I cannot say that I was "taught" the C-R theory directly.  The ideas evolved at one specific time (early February 1979), bundled-together as a "package-deal".  I can state that when I contemplated why gravity was present outside a (generic) black hole, but light could not emerge, it was the sudden understanding of HOW nature could accomplish that task, without resorting to magic or "pulling a rabbit out of a hat" {i.e., getting something from nothing}, that I have refined for 30 some years.

While I could not prove the C-R theory academically (or in a court of law), there is a straightforward simplicity to it, a human-understandability [without requiring multiple Ph.D's], that I find very satisfying.  I believe I understand it, and have simple new insights into how our universe really works.

There seems to be a predictive ability to suggest where to look, phenomena to look-for, and how to test these ideas against reality.  I would agree with critics that the C-R theory requires outrageous things, as understood by conventional theory.  That nature often seems to supply just those type-of outrageous items, in every place one looks, may demonstrate that science has been missing many items because "they could not, and should not be so".

After I started thinking in this new manner, and after I understood how these Black-Holes ^C-R fill-in an ecological gap in this universe, and occupy a niche that no other real object can replace.  The real "new" question is: If nature DOES NOT use something like (this method), then, WHY NOT?

My goal is also to slowly slide the incoming reader along a progressive path, from first-hearer, skeptic, understander, appreciater, advocater, and lastly teacher or instructor.  That fewer numbers will reach each higher (next) level, but slowly, the cycle of learning will advance.

If the C-R theory is wrong, then we will know yet another way nature does not work. If that is the case, then why have I seen so many items that seem to support that hypothesis? I have tried to list many of them, to show that it is not ALL in my imagination.

It took me many years before I felt a strong enough conviction to place my name on these items, and place them on-line, on the internet, and claim that this might be how nature works.  If only part-of these new ideas is correct, then we have additional information that was never known before.

From what I have read, Newton was never happy at all that gravity acted at a distance, with no direct mechanical connection, like a lever or a pulley, which would have been accepted in medieval times.  The problem is: he succeeded too well in describing how matter behaved when falling from above the surface of the earth.

Make no mistake though, science HAS NOT TESTED the Newtonian concept for matter falling (and accelerating?) while below the earth's surface, for any appreciable distance.  Most textbooks simply accept the concepts, and never give-away that WE CANNOT test the results, even down to the bottom of earth's crust, much less to anywhere further below.  (That DOES NOT stop professors from boldly testing students on the answers for what gravity IS THOUGHT to do, even though, the results [like dropping a ball all the way down to the core-mantle boundary, and monitoring the acceleration all that way down] are way beyond today's technology.

I would encourage everyone to do the simple experiment on gravity, but with a viewpoint "assuming" a curvature-based understanding, and simply check the answer that nature already gives you.  If you do not sense a paradox, or perceive a conundrum, try the experiment again with the view "Does gravity TRULY accelerate mass from MAXIMUM curvature, all the way, back down to MINIMUM curvature" somewhere else, if it WILL NOT DO SO right in front of you, where you CAN actually test it? If so, is not gravity inconsistent, or double-standarded? {an intentionally awkward term is intended here to suggest the true irony of the result vs. the standard expectations}

I do not mind if you do not believe ME, but ask gravity (or curvature) for a straight answer, as you test it, and honestly evaluate the answer that you get, every time.

As the last part of this blog, although I do not ENJOY saying so, in order for the C-R theory ideas to catch-on worldwide, it might be necessary to replace TWO generations of experts.  Those who are alive and well today (who clearly do not believe these new ideas), and the generation that was taught by them.  Afterward, a new generation will arise to look freshly at the C-R theory ideas, and not feel that they are wrong.  By then, newer pioneers may come along, and see through areas where I was wrong, or clung-on too tightly to old ideas I could not overcome, and learned an even truer nature for how this universe works.

I often invite readers to test the C-R theory ideas, and let them evolve to become your ideas, too.  There may still be plenty of "undiscovered treasures" remaining within that I have not yet uncovered.  I expect that there may well be very simple items that have not occurred to me, that the interested home reader may find obvious.  If this is the case, I look forward to any items the home-reader can tie-in, and connect to the C-R theory ideas.

That I know-of, there are no graduate students intentionally trying to prove, or disprove the C-R theory ideas, or to evaluate the claims with a supercomputer, to see if there is any validity to them.

I would also invite any budding filmmakers-to-be to produce short videos illustrating the Black-Hole ^C-R eating the heavy nucleus, and rejecting the electrons.  I would also like to see short videos illustrating the release of the pent-up positive charges.  This will contribute towards the incredible staying-power of the supernova, and why they continue to expand long after they should have cooled-off.

Thank you for visiting the C-R theory blog.  I hope you find these ideas reasonable, or at least challenging.  I always try to note the most recent developments, and look for items that could tie-in to the C-R theory's expectations.

If you do not believe these ideas at first, that is expected.  Just keep in mind the arguments I used, and consider the areas I have mentioned.  Mull them over, in your mind, and try to appreciate their overall simplicity.  Try to imagine why nature might chose to operate this way, and how it solves some dilemmas.  If you honestly cannot accept these ideas for now, keep the C-R theory in mind, and look for many of the phenomenon I tried to alert you to.  Check back in a few months, or a year, or 5 years, and re-evaluate how these ideas hold-up over time.

Jerry Reynard

Is something wrong with our universe, or just with our science?
HINT: Maybe it is the theory "science" uses to understand the universe that is wrong!!!

I was delighted to see this month (April, when I was writing this) that both Scientific American, and Science News had cover articles about problems with our universe, and the Big Bang.  The April 2011 issue of Scientific American featured an article about quantum gaps in the Big Bang theory, and how that theory must be either fixed or replaced.   Shortly after that, Science News for April 23, 2011 had a cover article about cosmic questions, unraveling the universe's greatest mysteries.

Both magazines stated that there is good evidence that scientists DO NOT understand the basic workings of our universe, and there is more mystery than certainty about the ultimate fate of this universe.  The Scientific American article pointed out that inflation, where the universe was thought to have expanded greatly in a very brief period immediately after the initial Big Bang, had more opportunities to ruin our universe than to get it just right. The author, Paul J. Steinhardt, covered the case for inflation, and the equally (if not more-) compelling case against it.  His conclusion is that new data, which should be acquired this year, may confirm or reject the case for the initial wave of inflation.

The Science News articles featured a group of 5 different (but related) articles by different authors, mostly reviewing science's lack of understanding why our universe's behavior seems so mysterious.  To interested readers, I would call your attention to the box on page 21, and two specific items of interest: (1): In 1917, Einstein applies general relativity to the universe, and then, later work by Willem de Sitter and Aleksandr Friedmann IMPLIES the possibility that the universe might be expanding.  Now, combine this with (2): In 1929, Hubble finds that the universe is expanding after analyzing the redshifts of distant galaxies.

"Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding" : This is where a loud warning-bell should clang, and science should take note: This IS where the starting ERROR LIES (pun intended).

The C-R theory maintains that these two items from the Science News chart summarize nicely EXACTLY WHERE the MISTAKE was made.  The C-R theory, almost alone, points out that: WHOA Nellie (an old saying, stopping a runaway horse, or cautioning against too great a leap of connection), there is ANOTHER POSSIBILITY, overlooked these many years.  

That new possibility is: The increasing redshift with distance HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the universe EXPANDING, but comes entirely from gravitational curvature, where matter ELSEWHERE is NOT just LIKE matter here on earth, but is subtlely changed, i.e., slowed-down, warped, bent, distorted {as in, elongated-pathway for light, stretched-out, taking MORE TIME to make the same-distance journey}.

THIS IS where science's BIGGEST MISTAKE of the last 100 years happened.  Two unconnected items, a speculation about this universe from a theory, and a legitimate observation about increasing redshifts with increased distance, were taken as PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, when reasonable doubtSHOULD HAVE won the battle!!!

Wishful thinking, topped with real evidence (in favor of expansion) were taken as proof, when what should have happened was for legitimate critics to challenge that the increasing redshifts could also be due to curving of spacetime (also an idea from general relativity, discarded in the process).

Just this last year, scientists demonstrated that when one atomic clock was lifted up by a "measly 33 cm" in earth's gravity, it ran faster by a minuscule amount.  This item MUST NOW BE CONSIDERED, in light of the ALMOST UNIVERSAL acceptance [of the redshift-expansion = PROOF] which has ignored the REAL alternative.  This idea has been taken seriously by almost NO ONE, except for the C-R theory.

Coincidentally, it is this very effect, where gravitational curvature CAUSES the time slowdown [and NEVER operates in THE REVERSE, where GRAVITY first causes the curvature], where the C-R theory claims that science has "put the CART before the HORSE".

This is why the C-R theory claims "You must try to understand this FUNDAMENTAL concept, where it IS the slowdown of spacetime, or gravitational curvature, in effect, changing the properties of mass, {packing-in more energy, or squeezing-out more energy} that CAUSES the aftereffect we notice as gravity." It IS this "change in expectations" that has lead to a total change in behavior expected from gravity.

In short: Curvature ALWAYS causes gravity.  NEVER, ever, does gravity CAUSE curvature.  The two ARE NOT equivalent, and are not interchangeable, one IS NOT the same as the other.  There is a clear, MASTER-slave type relationship here, but curvature is the real ruler, the true champion, with gravity as the dependant.  Science has had the roles reversed these last 90 some years, and missed completely the cause-effect relationship. (And, the misunderstanding of the ENTIRE universe WAS the result.)

To restate this simply, if the universe, as it is seen, does not make perfectly good sense to you, TRY CHANGING THE THEORY YOU USE to understand it with. [STRONG HINT to the home-reader: Try the C-R theory first, since this IS it's website HERE.]

As an example, let us consider a simple case of a hypothetical bowling ball. (I do not, in fact, own one.) If I were to seriously propose to you home readers that MY bowling ball was expanding in size continually, always increasing in mass, and always doing so at an increasing rate: I would be dismissed as seriously deluded, and mostly ignored.

Compare this to your generally accepted cosmologist, describing YOUR universe in exactly those same terms: Ever increasing size, ever accelerating, with NO KNOWN available source of energy to do so, and THE WORLD accepts it, grudgingly, because "they must know what they're talking about".

Since they ARE IDENTICAL claims in both cases, but one is vastly larger in scope, should not the same standards of evaluation be applied?

If the case of my bowling ball "expanding without limit" is ridiculous, should the much bigger claim of our universe "expanding without limit" NOT BE even MORE ridiculous? Yet the world of science would mock the smaller one, and accept the larger one as a mystery, or a gift, from dark matter.

Should not science be consistent, especially on an increasing scale?

To further refine this point, back around 1930, when a minimal amount of energy was missing in the hydrogen fusion reaction, where 4 hydrogen atoms fused into 1 helium atom and two electrons [needing two neutrinos to make up the difference]. Invoking "Conservation of Energy", Wolfgang Pauli (thinking for science) demanded a "new particle", the neutrino, be invoked to account for that "missing energy".

Yet, when science has been confronted with an "overpayment" of energy, to keep our universe constantly expanding at an accelerating rate, "wink, wink", dark energy has been invoked to explain the result, rather than DEMANDING the common sense notion that: Maybe our universe is NOT EXPANDING, and NOT ACCELERATING in that expansion, but appears "AS-IS" for a good reason.  THAT is the approach that the C-R theory takes.

The REAL reason for increasing redshift with distance is: This universe IS NOT the same "out there" as it is, here on earth.  Rather, curvature changes matter there, and warps it, or "slows it down".  The further out we go, the more slowed-down matter gets, in EVERY direction.

The best way to demonstrate this is that there is ALSO one region of increasing blue-shift, called "The Great Attractor".  This COULD BE taken as "evidence" that we live inside a closed universe, and we ARE NOT at the center.

The real reason that there is not ANY imprint from concentrated masses on the 2.7 K background radiation, is that it is not at all related to a big bang, but is averaged-out background noise, more akin to the roar of a waterfall (but coming equally from all directions).

NOTE: The C-R theory has gone on record PREDICTING that the 2.7 K will not redshift over time, or cool down, but will remain constant over time.  Just check back in a couple billion years, and we should have a good answer. (I wish I could speed it up to get YOU the answer quicker.)

A second way to tell, go to another location in this universe, and the 2.7 K should change.  If you go closer to the "Great Attractor", the temperature will cool off, and go lower, but if you go further outside, towards the outer edges, the temperature of the background should get higher than 2.7 K.

The net irony was, when we felt cheated for a neutrino's worth of energy (plus some angular momentum), Conservation of Energy was called-upon.  When we (as a universe) were perceived to be "OVERPAID, energy-wise", to expand this universe, science was considerably MORE RELUCTANT to invoke that same CONSERVATION of ENERGY.

Instead of using everyday, common sense, they have embarked upon an unsuccessful (and fictional?) snipe-hunt (hunting earnestly for a non-existent item), looking for dark matter.

Along a similar path, in the similar hunt for dark matter, that mysterious missing mass needed to explain why galaxies hold together, science has again overlooked the real answer, the one which is so simple and straightforward, the answer that can be derived from simply LOOKING at the evidence already at hand.

What holds together those galaxy arms, keeping them circling-around the outside of the galaxy at nearly the same speed as in the inside of the galaxy? How about ELECTROMAGNETISM? It is simple, and it is easy.  All we need is for there to be more electrical current flowing within the interstellar medium, and for those magnetic fields to constrict, scrunch, pinch, and hold-together those stars.

In previous blogs, I have gone over some of the evidence that explains why the C-R theory EXPECTS there to be so much electrical current flowing within galaxies, and that is an excuse for the curious readers to read more of the C-R theory's earlier items.  I did advocate in an earlier blog, before looking for a mysterious new force, why not try to rule-out the already known process of magnetic fields.  After-all, the electrical force is some 10⁴⁰ times stronger than the gravitational force, on an atom by atom level.

Anyone doubting that there is sufficient electrical activity within a galaxy need look no further than our own solar system.  There is so much electrical activity, on so many vast scales, it should be difficult to miss (or to ignore).  Staying closer-in than Pluto, there are so many KNOWN electrical clues, like thunderstorms, lightning, aurorae, solar winds, and the like going-on, can anyone question whether magnetism is a viable candidate to replace dark mass?

Certainly, there is not enough mass in a galaxy to have gravity explain why it holds together.  However, electromagnetism can concentrate, guide, move, and explain why the outermost parts of the galaxy rotate at the same speed as the innermost parts. (Look at any fan-blade while it rotates, for example.)

Thanks for visiting the C-R theory, and checking out the blogs.  If you cannot accept all of my ideas, that's OK, just keep them in mind.  My goal is as much to get readers to think where to look, and what to look for.  If I can plant the seeds of C-R type logic, and show it's reasonableness, I do not mind losing the "battle" today to win the war sometime down the road.

If I can get the home-readers to consider these ideas, and really think about them, I believe I have accomplished something good.  It is only when these items become obvious, and people stop to really consider what is seen, that the C-R theory seems a better alternative.

I welcome any theory which can more logically, and more simply reconcile what is seen in this universe with what is believed to be going on.  I offer the C-R theory, for free, as a better alternative to the Big Bang, and a return to common sense ( and, energy accountability).

Welcome to those new readers who are checking this out for the first time. Welcome back to the rest of you, my regular readers.

I would like to answer some questions suggested by readers, and I will try to tackle some areas where the C-R theory may be misunderstood.

I had a reader, Jens, from Sweden ask me, if matter inside our universe is contained inside, then, why is it not totally ionized, as I claim matter that gets consumed by the Black-Hole ^C-R [into the Neutral Zone ^C-R] is?

The answer is that I imagine that all of the matter inside our "observable" universe was here first, beforehand, and then, after concentrating, was sufficient to close-off this universe.  (So), Technically, the matter inside the active part of our universe has never been subjected-to being eaten and entering-through the Schwarzschild radius.

After sufficient matter accumulated, this created the inside Active Zone ^C-R.

NOTE: This was probably much earlier than 14 billion years ago, by the C-R theory reasoning. {I could not prove it, however.}

Separate AND Unequal: The Active Zone ^C-R and the Neutral Zone ^C-R

Once this established what I termed an Active Zone ^C-R, ONLY this closed-universe creates the conditions EXTREME-enough to establish (and maintain) the Neutral Zone ^C-R.  Because these two separate zones have DIFFERENT properties, with the Active Zone ^C-R being real-time active, and the Neutral Zone ^C-R held in a non-interactive manner, the internal (and active) matter does not mix with, and is not ever combined with matter that afterward passes through into the Neutral Zone ^C-R.  Something like oil and water, the two different zones are separate, and are kept apart.  They (normally) do not mix-together.

The properties of the two zones are so different, that nature "keeps them apart", isolated from each other.  Additionally, all matter eaten by a Black-Hole ^C-R, (possible only after it has become a Black-Hole ^C-R), is stored in an extremely "distorted or contorted" condition.  REMEMBER: Matter within the Neutral Zone ^C-R is stored-up so tightly, and so extreme, that no "speed-of-light-type" interactions can occur, {because the escape velocity there IS greater-than-the-speed-of-light}.  This means that absolutely no interactions can take place, and no exchanges of information or knowledge (of the electrical charge) can occur.

Also, all of the matter further inside of a Black-Hole ^C-R (kind-of the "core-matter", if you will) IS permitted to participate in all speed-of-light-type interactions.  This is one of the fundamental differences in a C-R theory brand-name Black-Hole ^C-R vs. all generic black holes (all of which are IMAGINARY, by the C-R theory, not real).

A quick summary: The Black-Hole ^C-R has an Active Zone ^C-R at it's center, and curvature at the exact center is always MINIMUM {because it is MAXIMUM at the outside edges, at the Schwarzschild radius}, whereas the black hole has only a (near infinitely-dense) singularity at it's center, and virtually nothing else anywhere inside it's volume.

Another way to visualize the two zones: The Active Zone ^C-R (inside) represents freedom, available choices, active participation, paradise, and stability.  The Neutral Zone ^C-R represents: Jail, secure confinement, deprivation, crowding, no choices (conditions imposed upon you), extreme loss of freedom, NO possibility of causing your own escape (from the inside only), no communication, no news, no timetable.

Only AFTER the Black-Hole ^C-R forms does the Neutral Zone ^C-R become established, and start operating.  NOTE: Under normal conditions, none of the operation of the Neutral Zone ^C-R will affect anything further inside the Black-Hole ^C-R in any manner.

A revision in my original thinking, based-upon real-world observations.

I have somewhat revised my thinking about the Neutral Zone ^C-R in the following manner.  After the Black-Hole ^C-R has been operating for quite a while, and accumulated a good amount of matter, as determined by the total proportion of stored-up, inactivated mass, to the total mass of the Black-Hole ^C-R, and the portion of that mass starting-off (and always present afterward) residing inside in the Active Zone ^C-R, the complete liberation of the contents from the Neutral Zone ^C-R may be so violent as to disrupt the (starting) Black-Hole ^C-R, and re-establish (or un-close-off) the object at the center (in the formerly closed-off Active Zone ^C-R).  This would then leave behind a visible object, such as a neutron star, or a magnetar.

This is a revision from my original thinking, that once the Black-Hole ^C-R was established it would continue-on forever.  I do not believe this occurs everytime, but there are now indications of some supernovae leaving behind magnetars or neutron stars in some occurrences.  I am more willing to admit now that I would "rather" allow this to occur than to forego the possibility that there ever was a Black-Hole ^C-R involved somewhere in the supernova process.

It is also possible that some supernovas do occur whthout ever forming a Black-Hole ^C-R, with all of the Neutral Zone ^C-R and Active Zone ^C-R creation occurring.  I can accept that some of the supernova 'starting masses' were never sufficiently dense-enough to create the Black-Hole ^C-R.

I would like to retain the flexibility to admit that my earlier views (uneducated guesses?) have been informed by conditions now known-about that I did not know-about back then.  My ideas are not totally "set-in-concrete" and unwilling to change, but that I do take into account all that I read, and I try to revise my ideas to adapt ALL of the known facts, or at least what I can glean from what I read from various sources.

I am also trying to allow that nature may not be quite as "exacting and absolute" as I had originally imagined, but may be more flexible and adaptable to a variety of extreme conditions, but with a practical-bent towards obtaining a useful goal {to recycle both matter and energy, and restore entropy}.  If I am wrong, I would like to know that sooner rather than later.  I still believe that the overall usefulness of the C-R theory is that nature has chosen something very-close to it (if not right-on-the-nose) to recycle matter and energy.  I invite all my readers to challenge the C-R theory ideas, though, and please inform me if you think there are known observations that may indicate some-other-type of operation going on.

Simple Rules of Operation:

I would like to go over some simple rules of operation, according to the C-R theory.

A Black-Hole ^C-R eats mass BY MASS, meaning that it devours the proton and neutron, but rarely-if-ever eats an electron.

All mass eaten by a Black-Hole ^C-R is stored-up in a "Neutral Zone ^C-R", a volume immediately-inside the Black-Hole ^C-R where the escape velocity (gravitational curvature) is above the speed of light.

The conditions in the Neutral Zone ^C-R are the most extreme in the universe.  Only in the Neutral Zone ^C-R are conditions so "bent, distorted, warped, twisted, or misshaped" that ALL interactions at light-speed are prevented.

NOTE: Gravity is "Caused-by" curvature acting-upon matter, and preventing it from interacting at light-speed.  This influence reduces the "energy-carrying-capacity" of matter in such a manner that some (most all) energy is squeezed-out from matter.  This energy which is liberated, is the source of the acceleration that matter experiences.

This energy is not also unlimited, but the release is restricted to ALL of the available energy possible.  NOTE: In the Neutral Zone ^C-R, where those conditions are extreme, matter is at it's MINIMUM-possible real-time energy configuration.

Once matter enters this MINIMUM-possible energy-state, no additional energy can ever be freed-up by gravity. [Otherwise, it would NOT be a minimum-energy state, would it?]

Honor and Off(er?) or (An) Off(er) You Can't Refuse

The matter in the Neutral Zone ^C-R still possesses some rest-mass energy, but none of this "residue" can be extracted if curvature "exceeds the escape-velocity of the speed-of-light". (Matter cannot be turned-off, interactionally, any more than 100% off.)

{It cannot go offer than OFF}

Matter residing in the Neutral Zone ^C-R IS NOT FREE to proceed further inward, to just wander back into an Active Zone ^C-R, [where the escape velocity is less than the speed of light] and all real-time interactions are permitted.  NOTE: This absolute condition is what prevents a C-R theory "brand-name" Black-Hole ^C-R from collapsing into a singularity.  Nature insists upon this safety mechanism.  The two zones are permanently separate, and can never intermingle or mix (while the Neutral Zone ^C-R remains intact).

Has Nature "April-Fooled" Earth's Scientists (since 1929)?

Let me also use this opportunity to expound a bit on why I think that nature has "April-Fooled" earth's scientists.  I will not claim it is deliberate, but it is definite.

After a few years ago, when scientists found distant type 1a supernovae dimmer and more red shifted than they would have expected, the scientists inferred that our universe is accelerating it's expansion in all directions.  What earth's scientists did not consider is: maybe distant space IS NOT the same as local space, nearer to earth.

The C-R theory claims that conditions inside our universe suggest a totally closed universe, which is very unlikely to be expanding at all.  Where the confusion runs rampant, our universe is more curved (bent, distorted, warped, slowed-down) as one nears the outer edges, or the portion of space that is more redshifted, in every direction from earth.

Is it not more unlikely that our entire universe is expanding at an accelerated rate [without ANY observable energy source], than that our "local" scientists are totally mistaken that 'somewhere else' in this universe possesses identical time-rate conditions as we do, here on earth?

The dead giveaway that the redshift in our universe is gravitationally caused, and not caused by expansion is the region called "The Great Attractor".

"The Great Attractor" is the main blue-shifted portion of this universe.  There is no indication that this region possesses sufficient mass to attract earth and vicinity at the rate attributed to it.  There is also no "backrush" or an indication that regions behind the Great Attractor are also being attracted-in to that location.

I would claim here that it is much less unreasonable that this region is simply running faster (in reality, is a less-slowed-down volume) than anywhere else.

NOTE: If the Great Attractor was simply a local phenomenon, there should be many Great Attractors, scattered uniformly across this universe.  Instead, we have one, and only one.

I would claim, from my old geometry days, that any generic sphere has one, and only one center.  If that center represents a 0, and every "outer-edge" of that sphere is at a radius of 1 (in whatever units we choose to measure that sphere in, and then convert it to a unity measurement, defining it as one unit).

If the time-flow-rate slows down as curvature increases, and it must do so in a "closed universe", it should follow that everywhere, not AT the center, the time-rate runs slower than at the center.  This IS exactly what we do see, in the case of the Great Attractor, even if science has not yet attributed the redshifts in this universe to be caused by that mechanism.

NOTE: This enormously simplifies the energy-accounting schemes, if our universe DOES NOT require a continuous source of excess dark-energy freely giving-itself-away. This also stabilizes our universe, structure-wise, for all time.  Since matter at the outer edges is MORE CURVED, therefore, less energetic, matter from there cannot simply "collapse inward", and gain real-time clocking energy.

That one simple point, completely-missed in the modern ideas about our universe, neatly accounts for both the observed increasing red-shift in all directions, and the local, regional blue-shift seen at the Great Attractor.  That is how gravity works, by changing (modulating) the carrying capacity of matter.  The effect is indirect, and DOES NOT expend any continuous energy to maintain this level.

To illustrate this point, imagine an orange squeezed by a vice or a clamp.  Notice that as the vice or clamp compresses the orange, forcing the juice out, the remaining portion of the orange features a diminished capacity to store and hold juice afterwards. Even once the clamp or vice is done changing the orange, the vice holds it's geometric shape, and does not relax it's clamping.  This "change to capacity" is therefore not in need of a continuous supply of energy, but the vice merely causes the orange to liberate some of it's stored-up juice, then ceases to cause additional changes.

What is also noticeable about this example is that once the orange releases 100% of it's stored-up juice, no more can ever be freed-up.  Only 100% of the initial juice-capacity (or less, if it started out not-quite-full) can be squeezed-out.  That is also the case with gravity (really curvature) squeezing (curving) matter.

Gravity is a (geo)metric-like effect, or shape (capacity) changing process.  Notice, that the clamp or the vice does not provideany of the juice (energy) itself.  All of the juice (energy) can only be freed-up from the orange.  The C-R theory maintains that, in the case of gravity, that analogy is also accurate.

Unique to the C-R theory, that I know-of, once ALL of the energy is freed from matter, no additional curvature increase (i.e., greater than the speed-of-light escape velocity) can free up additional energy.

A second unique thing to notice is that, while matter is in this compressed state, it cannot absorb ANY energy.  Curvature also accomplishes a task just like the clamp or the vice did for the orange.

All electromagnetic interactions, heat, light, electrical-charge knowledge, are forbidden once curvature places the escape-velocity above the speed-of-light.

NOTICE: Since the electrical particles are symmetrical, charge-wise, the negative charges (the electrons) do the "accounting" energy-wise, since they ARE freed-up outside the Black-Hole ^C-R.

Even though the positive charges are "held-in-abeyance, shut-off, turned-off, inactivated, prevented from interacting" while they are held in this highly distorted type-of geometry (or spacetime-metric condition), they do not disappear, or go away.

This unique "trick" that curvature plays on trapped matter (and energetic photons, too) is only "temporary", and cannot last forever. [There is no timer "clocking" on the duration, but the storage condition is unstable {by design}, and will ultimately release some of the contents, and possibly, all of the Neutral Zone's ^C-R contents.]

Our universe uses this "gift from gravity" to restore entropy, to fully recover everything ever eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R, and free-up the contents from the Black-Hole ^C-R.  Because the C-R theory type Black-Hole ^C-R cannot ever emit any "speed-of-light-based radiation" while the Neutral Zone ^C-R exists, this forces the Black-Hole's ^C-R recovery process to be thermodynamically 100% efficient.

I consider the "temporary" loss of freedom by the matter and energy stuck inside the Black-Hole ^C-R to be a very small price to pay for the maintaining of our universe's overall state of dynamic energy levels, forever.

That I know-of, only the C-R theory has both a practical (new and unknown) method for the Black-Hole ^C-R to operate, and a perfect energy recovery process to explain the overall usefulness of Black-Holes ^C-R in this universe.

If one tries to count the estimated quantity of known Black-Holes ^C-R, and multiplies that times the vast contents of our entire universe, it should be obvious that our universe is extraordinarily fond of Black-Holes ^C-R.  This implies their usefulness, and their purpose in the scheme of things.

I have been publicly stating, for many years, that the signature event, or process, to determine if ALL feeding black holes are really C-R theory brand-name Black-Holes ^C-R is that every feeding Black-Hole ^C-R WILL spit-out, or reject (without consuming) virtually all of the electrons.  Nature has so designed the Black-Hole ^C-R that almost NO electrons can enter-in past the Schwarzschild radius. [It is possible that when eating heavier atoms, such as lead and uranium, the Black-Hole ^C-R does not completely strip-off ALL of the innermost electrons.]

ONLY the C-R theory maintains that, part of the nature of mass, and the enormous difference in mass between the protons and the electrons for identical but opposite electrical charges was [and still is] intentional.  Mainstream science has no clue, no inkling of the significance of that property, and how critical it is to the proper operation of this universe.

If this massive cloud of freed-up electrons is not found [or found NOT to be the case] outside every feeding Black-Hole ^C-R, then the C-R theory IS wrong!!!

A "DARK" Fairy-Tale [Which the C-R theory IS Happily ENDING]:

Only the C-R theory maintains that dark energy and dark matter are totally fictional, and are only figments of the imagination.  All of the properties attributed to dark matter, such as holding together the arms of spiral galaxies, are instead caused by the massive quantities of free-electrical charges [electrical imbalances] and the magnetic fields they generate.  Galaxy arms are held together, not by gravity from dark matter, but by magnetic fields {which polarize almost ALL of the electromagnetic radiation we see in every band, in every octave, at every wavelength}.

Consider the CHARGES

If scientists would simply LOOK at the known stray-electrical charge phenomenon apparent merely within our own, local solar system, and infer that level of activity galaxy-wide, the "missing" dark-matter problem would go away.  If one further added-in the contributions to the overall electrical activity which has been discovered by the numerous satellite-probes which have been sending back data for years, one would be hard-put to deny that something electrical in nature was going-on in "electrically-neutral" outer space.

While I do not believe that this universe has been actively and mischeviously attempting to deceive earth's scientists, I would say that they have already been April-Fooled for "365 and 1/4 days each year, with extra days thrown-in for leap years, too". Someday, they will KNOW that they were fooled quite effectively; but today, the C-R theory is making that claim.

Suggesting where the errors LIE, to the LAYpersons:

Whether the home reader waits until everyone acknowledges that they were royally deceived [which could be decades into the future], or reads the C-R theory today, and investigates it to their own satisfaction, I am trying to show where the potential errors in "group-thought" {where everyone agrees with everyone else, almost without dissent} lie.

I would like to thank those regular visitors who check-in often, and who are seriously looking for good (better) answers.  I can guarantee that the C-R theory's answers are different than the standard thoughts from "the establishment".  While I am a bit disappointed that the theory has not yet caught-on as I had hoped, I do see occasional glimmers of insight.  It is certain that science has been surprised by what they have found, and things in this universe are not as cut-and-dried simplistic as theories would wish.

I am not going to yell at you, and try to force my ideas down your throats.  Instead, I will try to gently point-out where the simple errors may lie, and suggest a potentially simpler mechanism.

I have heard it said that we may just need to wait until the current generation dies-off, and is replaced with a newer generation who have not yet learned: It cannot be done THAT way.  By giving this theory away for free, you cannot accuse me of trying to get rich by selling you these ideas at the highest price possible.  The C-R theory IS either right, or it is wrong (or partially BOTH).

I do try to assess how the home readers are either misreading (or simply NOT reading) what I have written.  I continually attempt to restate it, to re-package it, to show-off it's advantages, and show how it simplifies understanding.

A Simple, but Perplexing Question:

HOW Does Gravity Escape [Emanate] From a Black-Hole ^C-R, when Heat, Light, and Electromagnetic Waves do NOT?

or, If Gravitons can only Travel at the Speed-of-Light, Do They Ever Escape From a (generic) black hole?

If one truly questions: How does gravity emanate from a Black-Hole ^C-R?

If gravity uses "speed-of-light-based" gravitons, or speed-of-light-limited gravitational radiation, then why should gravity escape with ease, when light cannot escape at all?

If you are not TROUBLED by the "standard answer", and do not sense the probable paradox, or double standard for gravity and light [or any electromagnetic radiation], then the C-R theory IS NOT for you.

If on the other hand, you are perturbed that something seems amiss in our understanding of gravity, I have tried to construct the C-R theory to answer your question in a totally new (to almost everyone) answer, using exciting NEW insights, and a different approach to understandability.  I believe that nature has already answered the problem, and I am trying to share that new realization with everyone who will read it.

I want to show you where to look, what to look for, practical tests you can try at home, and clear differences from standard expectations.  The price is FREE, so you cannot do much better than that for now.

Even if you reject these ideas for now, I want to at least show you a totally new way to think-about, and to approach the Black-Hole ^C-R phenomenon.

One way, or another, these ideas will be (and already have been) laughed-at.  I do know that a few people have started-to grasp these ideas, and most just fail to see (or accept) the potential.  By offering it to everyone, I am trying to present these ideas to the widest possible audience (short of paying people to read-about it, and to learn the concepts well enough to answer some quizzes).

My goal is to prepare some newer, more active graphics later this year, and try to do more colorful diagrams to convey some of the new concepts.

I do ask home-readers to tell me what they do not understand, or where they have questions.  If I can answer them, I will do so.

Now that these ideas are slightly established on the web (but not widely referred-to or known-about), I will try to concentrate on showing where the C-R theory, in action, can be a useful tool to see what is going-on, and to anticipate new discoveries.

I hope to be able to do more quantitative results, and show existing web-sites where these ideas manifest themselves in the data that are presented.  Nature HAS been kind-enough to give us the answers, in plain sight, if you KNOW where to look, and what to look-for.

One of the most promising areas is looking at the large number of active, multiple-positive ionizations, present in very old supernova remnants.  I would be curious to know if there are any old supernova remnants where these multiple-positive ionizations CLEARLY do not show-up? I know of ones where they do, but I am not aware of any that do not.

The C-R theory contends that the release of matter from the Neutral Zone ^C-R, the "liberation" of confined protons and neutrons, IS what POWERS the supernova explosions in the first place.  This explains WHY these expanding explosions continue-on for thousands of years, without fading-out or "cooling-off", even after thousands of years of continuous expansion.

Thank you for taking some of your valuable time to consider these ideas.  I hope that I can present this information in such a way that more of you can adopt these new ideas, and incorporate them into your personal thinking.  By realizing HOW nature has accomplished this PARADOX of gravity, allowing it to emanate undiminished across the Schwarzschild radius, while barring ALL electromagnetic knowledge and activity, one can start to APPRECIATE the solution.

Until one realizes that this IS HOW gravity operates, you WILL fail to anticipate the real benefits achieved using this particular method: Curvature adjusts the carrying capacity of matter, which allows matter to gain or lose energy IN DIRECT PROPORTION to the strength of that curvature.  This is effective, UNIVERSE-wide. Matter is affected by this "shape-capacity-changing", and this action is what produces gravity (indirectly).

That is how gravity CAN escape from the Black-Hole ^C-R withour radiating ANYTHING at "above the speed-of-light".  Even though "gravity" acts like a force, technically, it is indirectly caused.  By confining this action to a (geo)metric-like gravitational curvature, and not "directly" causing gravity, say with gravitons, the "speed-of-light" bound limitation is avoided, and the singularity is prevented.

March 18, 2011 Blog

Introducing: A New "Killer App" for 2011 from the C-R theory; how a new line of thinking about how a merger between two supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R solves two puzzles that conventional theory cannot.

This blog was originally to have been posted in January, but other things took priority.

In early January, on a Friday, I was mulling over a new analogy to illustrate the C-R theory take on the possible merger between two supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R.  I used a variation on a specific analogy to better illustrate the major differences in behavior that would only be apparent in one's expectations when using the C-R theory insights.  In doing so, I believe I came upon a fantastic new insight, that gave me a significant new answer to a profound question that conventional science cannot answer.  Why do Black-Holes ^C-R only get so big, and why we do not find ever larger ones.  

I believe I can now uniquely and simply answer the second profound insight, and explain why certain supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R have been detected, either: not at the exact centers of their galaxy, or in a few cases, have been found to be exiting a galaxy at a great speed.

Conventional theory has no good reason to expect that one supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R should be kicked-out of a galaxy after an attempted merger.  Using a new line of reasoning, the C-R theory can now provide a simple answer at to the why's and the how's.

I now believe I can generate a new answer to that question, and give you home-readers a simple to understand analogy to solve the "puzzle" as to why this should be so.  You may still have trouble accepting the C-R theory idea as reality, but I believe I can explain it in an easy to understand example.

In doing so, I think I have now refined my expectations, and found yet another profound answer "hidden in plain sight" within the C-R theory.

SPECIAL NOTE: I have commented in previous blogs that ONLY by understanding a Black-Hole ^C-R from a C-R theory specific curvature standpoint, is it very easy to realize that the matter stored inside ALL Black-Holes ^C-R is already at it's minimum-possible gravitational energy potential.

WARNING: You absolutely CANNOT and WILL NOT be able to understand the following example without at least temporarily accepting the C-R theory hypothesis. {I will leave plenty of time afterwards for you to reject it again, if you so desire.} However, the following example will make no sense to you whatsoever if you refuse to accept the C-R theory logic. {You WILL therefore FORFEIT ALL of the new benefits that can only emerge from this new line of reasoning.  HINT: I only noticed this starting in 2011, so I know that it is available nowhere else.  This line of reasoning is so different than standard theory accepts, that it CANNOT be accepted or even imagined using their line of reasoning.}

A very important aside here: One must first realize that in a C-R theory type Black-Hole ^C-R there is a special condition that MUST be set-up first, in order to make the Black-Holes ^C-R useful.  This difference DOES NOT HAPPEN, and cannot be expected to occur, when using conventional reasoning.

That KEY difference is that ALL MATTER eaten by every Black-Hole ^C-R must go into a Neutral Zone ^C-R, where matter is held in a "(geo)metric-like knot-state" where it is entirely "stored at a curvature above the speed of light" -escape-velocity-wise.  

In the conventional thinking about black holes, this "special new condition" of storing newly-infallen matter in a "set-apart zone", where the escape velocity is greater than the speed-of-light would not be critical, as all new matter is expected to be eaten in an electrically neutral state, and virtually nothing would be expected to change for the eaten matter.  Only the C-R theory claims that this special storage method establishes the "forbidding any interaction at the speed-of-light, anywhere within".

Inside the conventional black hole, virtually the entire inside volume is expected to be a totally-hollow, void-like emptiness, until "the absolutely-tiny" center singularity is reached.  That singularity is a minuscule portion of the total volume inside.  In their expectations, it is the ONLY significant contributor to the operation of the black hole.

A second note: In the conventional theory's reasoning: the entire volume inside the black hole has the escape velocity "greater than the speed of light".  Conventional theory has not yet learned [discovered] that nature was/is designed to exploit this storage-condition for the maximum usefulness, and therefore, only concentrates "where this effect takes place" in a very limited zone.  Conventional theory would not accept that this "above the speed-of-light" escape velocity also effectively prevents any and all communication between any particles, or that it insulates the electrical charges.  By their reasoning, that condition (inside the black hole) has no noticeable effect on the action of the positive (or negative) charges.

HOME READERS: I am sorry that you must learn this new way to think about the problem, and the solution, before it makes any sense to you.  For this reason, PLEASE suspend your disbelief, learn the concept, test it out as it is stated, and see it's usefulness in action.  If you start-off with the idea that nature does not have the ability do this (which IS the conventional theory's beginning point, you will miss-out on the benefits that nature has already accomplished.  I am simply trying to "clue-you-in" and to help you learn this new way of thinking.

All that I am asking is to give this new idea a test-ride first, then go back to disbelieving it, after you have tried it out.  ALSO: There is nowhere else that you can go to learn about this new concept.  It is only available here, from the C-R theory.

A Practical HINT: The C-R theory highly recommends that you do not ever think of the concept of The Event Horizon.  This concept will severely misguide you, and will lead your thinking astray.

How to Re-Understand the proposed Black-Hole ^C-R Merger, using the C-R theory:

The situation faced by matter and energy is totally different for a "brand-name" Black-Hole ^C-R.  Immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius, the conditions require (and establish) a "mandatory zone" or volume where curvature (and therefore, the escape velocity) exceeds the speed-of-light.  Why this expectation is so critical is that almost ALL of the matter that is eaten is in an electrically "ionized" state, where it will be completely stripped of most or all electrons* {*In the case of really heavy atoms, such as uranium, I am not willing to commit that ALL the electrons would be totally stripped-off.  I would go out on a limb to state that up to iron +23 ions, and virtually everything of lesser mass, ALL electrons are rejected.}.  

Under conventional conditions [where light-speed interactions are not forbidden], any amount of this "electron-stripped" matter should be unstable enough to blow apart the contents almost from the beginning.  Please remember that the electrical force repulsion between charged (same sign) particles is some 10⁴⁰ times stronger than the gravitational attraction is.  I would expect the explosiveness of matter should increase proportionally, due to the concentrated electrical charges.  It is only the distorted nature of twisted spacetime that so convolutes matter in the Neutral Zone ^C-R that prevents this explosion potential from being realized.

Under these special conditions (which exist immediately-inside ALL Black-Holes ^C-R), all matter eaten is stored-up in an electrically neutralized state.  Similarly, photons of energy should be trapped in a "well-like, resonance-state", resonating in small circles (at exactly the speed-of-light, but not in the "standard-3" dimensions [directions: up-down, right-left, front-back] we can describe), but in "twisted resonance-"net-like"-wells", slightly next-to a region of spacetime where real time "used-to-be-measurable".

Technically, the photons would exist beside themselves, but not in the directions above, below, to the left, or to the right, in front-of, or in back-of where we could imagine them.  The charges would reside in a mini-dimension in a direction just different enough that the complete energy-value can be maintained, intact, but never accessed, changed, influenced, measured, or measurable, by anyone living in real-time. Effectively, this makes the stored particles electrically neutral, for all practical purposes. This "saves them for a rainy day", or stores them in a manner that is literally, beyond our ability [while we are outside the Black-Hole ^C-R] to detect them.

The practical benefit to this is: Since the particles and photons stored in this manner practically disappear, nature can bunch them, concentrate them, and handle them with total safety, as long as those "neutralizing-conditions" apply.

HINT: Alfred Nobel made his fortune by safely "stabilizing" nitroglycerine when he invented dynamite.  It was much safer to handle, and saved many miner's lives in the process.  The Neutral Zone ^C-R is to "safe-handling and storage" of this group of explosively-dangerous charges, similar to what dynamite is to nitroglycerine.

Let me add in this additional commentary.  The incoming matter, eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R is already "subdued and conquered".  It is in no condition, and absolutely powerless to change it's fate, and there is no ability for matter or energy there to DO anything, [from the INSIDE], that can re-activate any of the trapped matter.

Before you rebel at this concept, let me state that this is not the only location that can influence the release of matter and energy trapped inside.  This is where external supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R come in very handy {necessary to the good workings of a Universe}.  What the matter on the inside is forbidden to do (make any attempt to actively escape) is NOT BARRED to a close encounter with an additional Black-Hole ^C-R.

This is where the true genius of this situation becomes apparent, and this is what I just realized at the beginning of this year.  Rather than setting-up this universe for FAILURE (as the Big Bang, ever-expanding universe is almost required to do, as time goes forward), the C-R theory realizes that this universe is: planned for success, and almost perfect* recovery of every photon, neutrino, atom, and sub-atomic particle that was eaten. {*Note: There may be some additional particles not totally freed-up at each encounter, so I do not claim a "perfect 100%" restoration happens every time.  The important thing is: nothing EVER goes to waste, nothing is ever lost, and nothing is beyond practical recovery [and I would highlight the PRACTICAL part of that].

Please do not take my word for it, that nature just does this, but check out the evidence that is observed, and see if the known facts fit the situation as I described it.

NOTE: Imagine if I wrapped you up in a big ball of the hawser-cord that supertankers or aircraft carriers are tied to a pier with, in such a manner that you could not move, but so that you would not either die or remain conscious as long as this "storage-mode" persists.  In a technical sense, all of the conservation laws would allow this to occur, but no interactions of any kind could go-on with you while this storage-state continued.  

Inside this Neutral Zone ^C-R

If we attempted-to measure time by counting the increments of distance that the light took, there, at the speed-of-light, to travel the smallest distance possible, time would not be measured, as no travel would be possible.  This is something-like what I imagine "life trapped in the Neutral Zone ^C-R" would be like.  Impossible to live, and impossible to die, yet unable to sense any passage of time, or participate in any interactions.  It would be very close to a suspended animation state, with the proviso that the storage conditions were so extreme, you might be killed if anyone attempted to extract you out of that state.

Secondly, immediately inside of that thin Neutral Zone ^C-R, every Black-Hole ^C-R has a completely enclosed Active Zone ^C-R.  This Active Zone ^C-R is in essence a completely closed structure, sealed-off from the outside, except that the "influence from curvature" does couple-through. {Its value does not change actively over time.}

NOTE: This conveying of the value of the curvature IS NOT governed-by any type of speed-of-light-limited radiation, but is more akin to a twisting, bending, warping, or distortion of the fabric of space.  I envision it as geometric-like influence.  (Imagine something that could twist your arm or pinch your skin without contacting it.  Think of the twisting-effect on the strands of a mop, or a piece of rope or twine.  This influence exists, but does not change with time, or vary.  It simply "is").

A suggested new pun to appropriately-cover this situation could be: KNOT in my back yard, or, KNOT that I can see.

NOTE: If we understand our universe, and the laws that govern it, that is exactly what conditions inside any Active Zone ^C-R are like.  Normal matter would be 100% at home, with true, real-world interactions.  It would also be something-like the inner tube that supports a bicycle-tire, or the inner-hole that defines a donut's or a bagel's boundary, but is not a physical part-of-it.  You could also think, it is something-like the zeros whose existence gives meaning to the numbers like 100, or 1000, or 10,000.  All of the above situations set-apart or define a structure that defines a larger object.

NOTE that in this setup, ALL of the eaten matter, and the energy a Black-Hole ^C-R acquires can only be stored-up in this neutralized condition, and that the matter can never simply "just-pass-through" this barrier to join the more-(energy)-active matter further-inside, in the Active Zone ^C-R, where conditions do permit full speed-of-light-type interactions, at least as long as the condition persists.

Originally, I never thought of this situation in this new way, where the Schwarzschild radius may act something-, more-like a magnet-set, where adding-in a new magnet almost snaps-it-into the overall structure, rather than acting like a doorway or a passageway, where one simply passes through without being changed.  If matter added-in to the Neutral Zone ^C-R behaves in this manner, that may help to account for the circumstances.  REMEMBER: The properties of matter CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY in the Neutral Zone ^C-R, being "bound-up, trapped", whenever matter resides within. EFFECTIVELY: The electrical charges disappear, and are totally inactivated.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The Neutral Zone ^C-R is the only place in this universe where the conditions are so extreme as to cause this "neutralized" behavior.  SECOND ITEM: For all practical purposes, every Neutral Zone ^C-R is only a temporary-holding-state of affairs.  It IS NEVER permanent!!!!!

REMEMBER that the Neutral Zone's ^C-R "confines" represents "THE MOST EXTREME STORAGE CONDITIONS POSSIBLE".  It is much more like a brutal assault on matter's freedom; demanding TOTAL SURRENDER, than a peaceful stroll in the park.  The situation is more like: a mugging, and martial-law-confinement* {*without a specified maximum-permissible time limit}, and a suspended death-sentence, all rolled-into-one.

{I am probably guilty of under-describing the violence of the situation, because I originally imagined it as a more peaceful and benign process.  I apologize for my initial error in perception.}

Remember that this Neutral Zone ^C-R effect is literally: "The most extreme gravitational-curvature condition possible for matter", (especially since the singularity imagined by conventional theory never exists)

THE NEWEST OF NEW IDEAS (unique to the C-R theory):

Instead of a MERGER, it is probably more like a MURDER, when Black-Holes ^C-R Collide.

Since the entire contents of BOTH of the "to be merged" Black-Holes ^C-R are already stored, compacted, gravitationally, as low energy-wise as possible (in the most-exposed, most VULNERABLE outer regions, stuffed-into the Neutral Zone ^C-R), there is no "additional energy" available for the release-efforts to "reward" the larger Black-Hole ^C-R with "the easy to eat contents" from the smaller one.  In essence, the "hypothesized-massive" energy-release from the merger is more like a "super-wimpy"-addition-, of one "dinky" zero added to another "minute" zero; when the grand-sum total result is still zero.

What I had not previously considered, but what became obvious to me when I used this new thought process-model to explain to you at home, was an answer that I had not anticipated before.  When I realized what I'd stumbled upon, I was so happy that I realized I wanted to share it with my blog readers right away.

[Please set aside for the moment that some critics will state, "but the example you use DOES NOT actually apply to Black-Holes ^C-R ", and wait to see how this example still illustrates an important new point.]

The Merger-Murder Model (of Black-Hole ^C-R mergers)

Imagine two small, plastic, "kiddie-type" swimming pools, each one exactly filled to capacity, bulging to the last drop, with scalding hot water.  Now imagine that one or both of them get the idea to merge, or that they try to combine their contents, and make one even larger-sized swimming pool.  In their attempt to merge, the inconvenient fact here is that each pool is already at it's full capacity, and neither one can expand enough to take-in even one-more-drop of the other's contents. [Because of the uniqueness of the circumstances, as we have set-it-up.]

{Note: This is not an exact analogy for the Black-Hole ^C-R merger, but it is intended to illustrate some newly-thought-of possibilities for what one of the dilemmas may be.  Do not take the above example too literally.}

What this example highlights is; the matter immediately inside every Black-Hole ^C-R is stored in such a "tortured, convoluted" physical state that it is trapped, where the escape velocity is greater-than-the-speed-of-light.  What is especially important to realize is that, if, for ANY reason, this matter "exits" this new [highly distorted] state, it becomes incredibly, explosively unstable, since it is composed primarily of protons and neutrons which have been eaten by their respective Black-Holes ^C-R.  It may be quadrillions of times potentially more energetically explosive than the most unstable of chemical explosives, if it gets free.

NOTE: The electrical-repulsive force, from similar charges, is orders of magnitude stronger than the chemical-bond force.

WHY this NEW Insight could ONLY come-from the C-R theory:

What I had not realized before, until I re-considered this example of an attempted merger is: in order to release any of their contents, or share their contents (or to be overpowered by the larger Black-Hole ^C-R appropriating and "ripping-loose" the smaller Black-Hole's ^C-R lunch, the contents probably would have to be temporarily freed-up {from the Neutral Zone ^C-R}, to traverse outside the Black-Hole's ^C-R Neutral Zone ^C-R area.  This type-of INSTABILITY cannot be appreciated or reasoned-out by using conventional paradigms!!!

As soon as the "inactivated" contents escaped from their confines (from highly-curved spacetime), the results would prove catastrophic, and violently release the protons.  Whether this would occur in small batches, or in an apocalyptic, free-for-all, total jailbreak; in all likelihood, one or two of those Black-Holes ^C-R could explosively lose some of their mass, rather than: either-one gaining anything.

{HENCE: The sub-title above, that it may be more-like MURDER than MERGER for both Black-Holes ^C-R.}

Another special note here is that this release area, where the explosion would be concentrated is specifically located directly in-between the two Black-Holes ^C-R.  The resulting thrust-outward is also maximum directly between the two Black-Holes ^C-R.  That area (or volume) provides the ammunition to launch-out the lower-massed Hole, where the majority of the violent explosive power would be located and concentrated.

GUESS: The closer the merging Black-Holes ^C-R approach, the MORE UNSTABLE they BOTH become.  The probability of an explosive release INCREASES with their mutual proximity!!!

REALLY STARTLING NEW IDEA: The larger of the two supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R may have the MOST UNSTABLE (accumulated) MASS TO LOSE, and IT may become "The Biggest Loser", and not The Champion-Eater.

That is why, as an innovation, I needed to use the totally FILLED swimming pools to illustrate the proposed aftermath to the merger and to highlight the INSTABILITY of the situation.  That is why I did not go with a "truer" description of the "lone Black-Hole ^C-R", where the Neutral Zone ^C-R could expand almost indefinitely.  Only when I thought about the potential "jailbreak-like" escape-situation did I realize that I now had the "smoking-gun" type-explanation as to what event could cause a perfectly-normal supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R to be kicked-out of a galaxy at a high speed.  

HINT: Think of a juggler juggling bottles of nitroglycerine, with the certainty that any and every mishap will be his last.  This could also explain the second situation, where science has detected at least one supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R that IS NOT at the center of it's galaxy, but is significantly displaced from it.

NOTE: One would only EXPECT this type of unstabilizing behavior to be released during any most-extreme-merger attempt between the two most-extreme Black-Holes ^C-R, as they each drew near to each other's unstable, Schwarzschild radius.

This explosive release-situation would never be expected from a conventional black hole merger, where ALL of the contents from each black hole were squirreled-away "snug" inside a well-padded singularity, where the "practical" recovery options of their internal contents are not nearly as promising to theorists.

I was reading an article just recently about a rogue supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R that was seen exiting a galaxy at high speed.  [The article was from earlier last year, but I did not encounter it or read it until this year.]

While I cannot "prove" that this is what happened in this case, mainstream science is at a loss from their "Newtonian-type understanding", where the biggest [conventional] black hole should almost always win the gravity battle every time, and grow ever-bigger, without any naturally-occurring size-limit.

Where the C-R theory gives us something new to understand, to look-for, and to measure:

What is really neat in this new case is that I once again "stumbled-over" a simple, common sense answer, that seems to agree with reality, explains how nature overcomes a severe dilemma (to conventional theory), and provides a practical guide for things to look-for that conventional theory simply would not expect.

What is even more satisfying, is that I now believe that I CAN understand why scientists do not find Black-Holes ^C-R of ever increasing mass-size, but encounter limits which seem not to be exceeded.

This also explains why, when scientists are looking-for universe-wide distortions of spacetime that should-be radiating-out, away-from these proposed Black-Hole ^C-R mergers, they are finding no evidence to support it, regardless of their equipment's sensitivity. (See articles on the LIGO experiment that is under construction.)

Yet once again, I think I have found a significant "new" insight proceeding directly from a simple C-R theory type scenario, using conditions that ONLY THE C-R THEORY expects.  I had wondered if I had run-out-of new and simple possibilities that the C-R theory still had left in it, and the answer again seems to be NO, not yet.

I offer the possibility to ALL my incoming readers that the C-R theory approach is still new enough, and "uninvestigated enough" that there may be easy-to-discover items available to be anticipated to anyone (especially YOU who consider this theory) on a first-come basis, if they are only willing to try-out the C-R theory.  I am still hoping that one of my longer-time, returning site-visitors will make a significant, new uncovery (or discovery) that I have not yet thought-of.  If someone other than me can also use these principles to discover or realize simple truths, that would be my desire.

Of course, if there is nothing there, or the C-R theory is untrue, all would be for nought.  My hope is, I can be vindicated (and the C-R theory, too) if and when someone other than me can use these simple principles and apply them in some new area to connect to the existing, real world observations that science has already obtained.

Sadder news, too:

Although that new triumph seemed to greatly encourage me this last January, there was also sadder news on the home front.  My dear mother passed away suddenly and unexpectedly this last January, on a Saturday afternoon.  Needless to say, she "kind-of" made the C-R theory possible, by making me possible, and she will be greatly missed by her many friends and all of our remaining family members.

She had seemed to be in good health when I last saw her, just after Christmas, and I had thought she might have many more years left in her.  I do expect to see her again in the next life to come, sometime down the road (and I would hope, many years off), and I know that she went on to a better place, to meet her Maker.  I do believe she did her best to leave this world a better place for everyone by her having been here.

When I returned from the first (hometown) memorial service for my mom, my friend, and the webmaster for this web-site, told me that he received word that his mother had also passed away unexpectedly in her sleep.  I would like to acknowledge his loss here, and to thank him for his continued (and totally volunteer-based) services here.  If the strengths of his character are patterned somewhat on her role model, she did her job well, too.

Secondarily, I just got back this last month from a second memorial service for my mom, to return her to her hometown, to a final resting-spot she chose earlier in life.  She had already purchased a plot where she could rejoin her beloved family members from the earlier generations.

We had a very good service indoors, and with a limited number of close relatives present for the outdoor portion, only after a few days after the most nasty winter storm in a long time.  For that reason, the outdoor portion was kept very short. {It was about 20 degrees F outside, for that final part of the service.}

Anyway, I decided to include these brief tributes to our departed mothers in addition to just standard scientific reasoning.  I figured that this knowledge might be of interest to many of our regular readers, who return often for updates.

I had an interesting letter about some questions that occurred while trying-out the theory, from a regular C-R theory home-reader, which I will cover in the next blog, probably near the end-of March, along with my responses.  I would like to cover some areas that I have not presented for a while, and I would like to try to explain why using the C-R theory may help us to understand what is really going-on in our universe better than the competition.

By the time this blog is posted, we will be past the arrival of our 30,000^th recorded visitor to this web site.  I would like to thank all of you incoming home-readers who have ventured to this site, to consider the new, and non-standard ideas that have been presented here.  I do hope that you can incorporate some of these new ideas into your personal understanding, to get a better idea of the overall state of affairs in this universe.

This blog, last modified March 18, 2011

(To our regular readers, sorry for the delay in posting this blog.  I will try to blog more often, with shorter sessions over the upcoming year.)

Jerry Reynard

I would like to thank all of those incoming readers who re-visit this site. That suggests to me that you are interested in learning more about the C-R theory views, or you are at least willing to consider the new ideas advocated here.

I received an e-mail from an old friend, from my Navy days, stating that he had become a believer in the C-R theory. That is something I would like to hear more often, that I am starting to make a difference in the views of some readers, against an almost overwhelming tide of different ideas in the textbooks.

I told that friend that I thought I had made good progress, and that the last few years had been very kind to the C-R theories, evidence wise.  I supposed, initially (in 1979) that the C-R theory might take 50 years or more to start to become accepted, and only 32 years have passed since I first arrived at the new ways of thinking.  When one considers that virtually all of the textbooks and teachers start-off rejecting the C-R theory's starting position, [that Black-Holes ^C-R consume the heavier nucleus (with it's positive charges)] before they even try to look for a viable alternative; that is progress, albeit more slowly than I would prefer.

I have blogged quite a bit in these last two years about the differences in the C-R theory, and those blogs are archived on the side column to the right of the newest blog. I wanted to try to craft shorter blogs, more often, this year.

Briefly, I just came upon an interesting story, today, that some scientists just found some enormous, short-duration flares coming from the Crab Nebula.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106145432.htm That region had been thought to be very stable, and science thought it held no great surprises.  Those short-duration flares had electrons accelerated up to at least 10 peta-electron-volts (10 quadrillion eV). According to that article, that is 1000 times as energetic as our best, most powerful earth-bound particle accelerator, the LHC, can accomplish.  They also stated that is 15 orders of magnitude more energetic than normal light.

For the C-R theory, this is yet another outrageously high-energy source of electrons, traceable to a specific astronomical object.  Whatever the source, it is also highly variable, and capable of very rapid changes.

Another (unrelated) new thought that did occur to me was that, if the newly-discovered excess-electron-filled lobes above and below our galaxy's center bulge are filled with the energy of about 100,000 supernovas, that is almost 4 supernovas-worth of excess energy for every visitor (so far) to this C-R theory web-site.  When I think in terms like that (positively) rather than negatively, like trying to change the remaining 7 billion skeptics in this world, one by one, I can be amazed by the progress.

The real question is: How can I change how those not-yet-converted [my target audience], think about Black-Holes ^C-R (vs generic black holes), almost singlehandedly?

Technology is improving almost daily, and astronomers are finding-out about new ways to measure the environment in space in ways that were never anticipated, before. That science is continually finding conditions almost exactly like (only) the C-R theory would expect is something that most theories can only dream about, but are rarely rewarded-with.

Conditions like electrical charges and magnetic fields that should be ruled-out by common textbook understanding of black hole operation (like assuming electrical neutrality) and the expected collapse into a "non-understandable" singularity, have hamstrung conventional scientists thought processes.  This has blinded them to not even thinking about the possibility of trying to LOOK-AT the conditions found around Black-Holes ^C-R first, and THEN awterwards, to make-up their minds about how the Black-Holes ^C-R actually operate, based-upon the observed evidence.

Since we cannot simply visit a Black-Hole ^C-R, and do experiments nearby {or inside them (*except for our universe, here and now)}, we are stuck entirely using tools operating from earth (or relatively nearby) to test ALL of our conclusions.

I would agree with most scientists, that, by THEIR books, the C-R theory IS WRONG [and impossible, too], but I differ in the opinion that it is those books that may be in error, rather than the C-R theory, if the evidence has any relevance in the matter. There is entirely too much electrical activity, with too many electrical imbalances in too many locations, for an electrically neutral universe to make sense.

A small problem with the Electrical Universe type theories is that they lack a causative mechanism.  They simply suspect that the electrical currents come from "somewhere else", and continue circulating around.  The question to them is: Why?

Of the theories that I know-of, only the C-R theory has a viable causative mechanism to explain where these observed electrical charges and magnetic fields come from.  Conventional theory can only state that, as far as they know, nothing like that should be occurring, so there is no perceived need to look for or test for electrical items.

With the increase in knowledge, science may start to catch-up to where the C-R theory has already been, when it comes to explaining the WHY of things that are seen. If the C-R theory can help to guide others to show where to look, what to notice, and what to observe, then how to understand the processes going on.  It may make more sense to learn from someone who predicted these spare electrical charges beforehand, rather than learning from those who deny the possibility of their existence.

30 years ago, there was very little evidence of excess electrons in the common literature.  The multiple positive ionizations in thousand-year-old supernova remnants were not known about, either.  Way back then, we did not have Google and Bing and other search engines that we could type in phrases or search items with, we had to physically trek-out to a suitably-stocked library, and hunt through stacks of books or magazines to find the things that we can get in a few seconds now.

[For those who did not experience it, it was not all bad, either.  By looking through stacks of magazines and books, one often noticed other seemingly irrelevant things that were not in the target search, that might actually be useful or interesting.  That is how I encountered many of the diverse items that I somewhat remember from those earlier days.  I did not take extensive notes way back then (and still do not do so now, most of the time), but I do remember that I read about these phenomena somewhere, and it is easier to weave those items in to my mind's paradigms.]

I even encountered one of the next key items from the C-R theory, in Discover magazines top 100 science items of 2010.  Mainstream science is finally considering that space may not be identical in all directions [or isotropic], but that conditions change from place to place.  That is still not quite the same as recognizing that, if we live in a closed universe, that imposes a preferred reference frame over us, which mandates different conditions, imposed upon different locations, by their relative position.

If you can connect that with the idea that, if gravitational curvature changes the local conditions of matter, by location, there may be SYSTEM-WIDE conditions that can be measured, noticed, and connected-in to one's overall mental picture of our universe. {If you cannot, or will not do so, you WILL FAIL to understand the C-R theory, guaranteed.}

The C-R theory contends that you, the home-reader, can start to re-understand our universe, if you are willing to make some very simple changes to your common thinking.

Some new thoughts for 2011: I was reading an article about our sun's heliopause, or the location where our sun's protective bubble from the solar wind dies out, and the nature of outer space (beyond the sun's influence) takes over.  NASA is monitoring the Voyager satellites as they continue on their journey out of our solar system.

It occurred to me that, if our sun is actually emitting huge quantities of excess electrons on a continual basis, and that mainstream science has no clue that this is happening, the influence on the positively-charged cosmic rays coming from beyond our solar system could actually be accelerated inward.  In addition, there might be some other measurable influences that could be noticed or checked-on.

The article I read said that the sun's heliopause did extend out further than "science" initially expected.  Could it be because there is an added influence that has not only not been expected, but that has never been looked-for, either? I suspect that some evidence, either way, might already exist.  Since the thought just occurred to me this year, it is something new. ("New items" is one area where home-readers might be aware of data I have not yet encountered, or some at home may think of new ways to test or challenge existing dogma.) One of the reasons I mention it is that new ideas still pop into my head, every so often, and the "final Version" of the C-R theory is not yet "set in concrete".

Now that we have some spacecraft going beyond this heliopause, will observations be made that give science the idea that they have indeed missed what space beyond the sun's influence is really like? At least, we will have data from a new vantage point to consider, which may be "unfiltered" by a large bubble of excess electrons as well as a huge magnetic-field bubble.

Another idea I have been considering for quite a while suggests a need to revise (refine) my initial ideas about generic Black-Holes ^C-R and the equality of the turn-off process, or nothingness [the over-the-speed-of-light escape velocity region].  If I consider Black-Holes ^C-R at various locations within our full (closed) universe, I might need to factor-in a correction or a gradient factor.

Where this gets most interesting is: if that is the case for Black-Holes ^C-R INSIDE our universe, is something like that also the case for our universe, if our universe is one of many, many more smaller Black-Holes ^C-R located somewhere inside an even larger closed-off universe? If so, this would establish an external (outside of our universe) based bias on the inner contents of this universe.  I have read that just such a flow or temperature bias may have been located in regions far-away from earth, but within this universe.  The appearance has been interpreted that the focus of this modulation seems to lie outside of our universe's observable boundaries. [See dark flow as a topic.]

Of course, I have no clue as to where inside an even larger universe our universe would be located.  Nearer the center, scattered to the outskirts of the farthest edges, or somewhere inbetween.  That I remember, I have not yet blogged upon that topic, since it would introduce even more contention into an already contentious situation.  Since dark flow is a topic of current interest, I decided to state that the C-R theory does have an opinion, and a C-R theory "spin" to comment upon.

I read about the topic of dark flow, which mainstream science is trying to fit into a hidden-universe slightly interacting with our universe [or parallel-to it], while possibly co-existing in the same spatial locations with us, something-like multiplexing broadcast radio stations, where many "sub-channels" share the same frequency and use the same antenna, but co-existing peacefully with little or no co-interference with each other.

The C-R theory "spin" on this idea is that our universe may be a sub-part of a much larger whole [as a little portion inside-of a much-fuller system], rather than one-of-many, kind-of overlaid upon each other, in separate-but-distinct layers, something like what book pages act like, with each page laying upon each next consecutive page in a book.

What I am trying to share is that my concepts from the C-R theory are still evolving, and I am still accumulating new ideas with every passing year.  I believe that I might be trying to see an even bigger picture of the whole, well before mainstream science sees even the smaller picture {from the C-R theory vantage point}.

I am trying not to be too dogmatic to my initial concepts, and yet to be flexible enough to accommodate the newest findings.  If the C-R theory is at all wrong, there should be abundant evidence just laying-about to show that it is incorrect.  When I search, what I keep finding is the types of "outrageous anomalies" that only the C-R theory could use and love.  It is possible that I have on "selected blinders", where I only see what I want to see.  That is why I am trying to share these expectations, on line, and publicly, of where to look, what to test-for, and why to expect it.  That way, if others find these same things, too, then it is not just me.

What I hope to offer is for home-readers to take the C-R theory and put it to your own tests.  Look for evidence which seems to support it, and look for observations that should rule it out.  Do not just use the items that I suggest, but look for similar items that are already known about and reported in the existing literature, and brand-new items too.  Both types-of items should be available and freely announced to anyone with an internet connection.

If conventional theory is true, and the C-R theory is totally wrong, one would think it should be easy to find abundant evidence that it is wrong, and hard to find evidence that would seem to back it up.  Just the opposite is what I regularly find.  I find little or nothing that would disprove it, and many items that seem to need the C-R theory's help to make good-sense of them.

If only one or two items on the entire internet favored the C-R theory, I would be skeptical.  For the last 30 years or more, I regularly find items that seem to agree with the C-R theory that there is some mighty interesting electrical behavior in almost every direction.  It is conceivable that I am deliberately missing evidence that disproves the C-R theory, or not looking in the right places.

I invite all my home-readers to send in links to articles that describe any real observations (not just a new theory of what SHOULD be happening) that indicate the C-R theory is wrong.  Surely, someone out there can come up with items that go against what I have described.  The universe is big enough that something should be known about that could easily determine that the C-R theory ideas are wrong.

If anyone else out there finds nothing that seems to disprove it, but many items that seem to support it, I would also appreciate your findings.  Again, I am reminded of my favorite Chico Marx quote (and he is not often quoted) "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?"

Please check the evidence and the findings in books, magazines, and web sites, and see if what is described matches what the C-R theory claims should be expected.

To paraphrase from another famous quote, "We all know your theory is crazy.  The real question is: Is it crazy ENOUGH?" That question has never been asked of the C-R theory, that I could find.

Look for indications of excess electrical currents, intense magnetic fields, polarized em-band (electromagnetic) waves, from radio, infrared, light, uv, at least up, into the X-rays.  Something [with energy] must be polarizing those waves.  Look for excess electrons around feeding Black-Holes ^C-R, and look for excess positive charges in very old supernova remnants.  Only if you find ALL of those items, simultaneously, should you consider the C-R theory to be vindicated (or supported). {Hint: If they weren't found in abundance, would I tout that as refuting support or proof?}

I would like to start covering single topics more thoroughly, starting in my next blog, unless nature intervenes and provides some fresh irresistible new evidence for the C-R theory's correctness.  I would like to cover ideas like curvature, a closed universe, the properties of the C-R theory brand Black-Holes ^C-R, the real causes of redshift and blueshift, and how to exploit the differences in matter and energy to recycle, refresh and renew matter and energy, and restore entropy to a lower value using simple new ideas.

(If I am wrong, I WOULD like to know it, so I don't keep making a fool of myself.)

I look-forward to soon blogging again, and trying to share more fresh aspects from the C-R theory ideas with anyone willing to listen (or read) about it.  Thank you for visiting this web-site.

Jerry A. Reynard, January 11, 2011

I would like to thank all of those incoming readers who re-visit this site That suggests to me that you are interested in learning more about the C-R theory views, or you are at least willing to consider the new ideas advocated here.

I received an e-mail from an old friend, from my Navy days, stating that he had become a believer in the C-R theory That is something I would like to hear more often, that I am starting to make a difference in the views of some readers, against an almost overwhelming tide of different ideas in the textbooks.

I told that friend that I thought I had made good progress, and that the last few years had been very kind to the C-R theories, evidence wise I supposed, initially (in 1979) that the C-R theory might take 50 years or more to start to become accepted, and only 32 years have passed since I first arrived at the new ways of thinking When one considers that virtually all of the textbooks and teachers start-off rejecting the C-R theory's starting position, [that Black-Holes ^C-R consume the heavier nucleus (with it's positive charges)] before they even try to look for a viable alternative; that is progress, albeit more slowly than I would prefer.

I have blogged quite a bit in these last two years about the differences in the C-R theory, and those blogs are archived on the side column to the right of the newest blog. I wanted to try to craft shorter blogs, more often, this year.

Briefly, I just came upon an interesting story, today, that some scientists just found some enormous, short-duration flares coming from the Crab Nebula.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106145432.htm.   That region had been thought to be very stable, and science thought it held no great surprises Those short-duration flares had electrons accelerated up to at least 10 peta-electron-volts (10 quadrillion eV). According to that article, that is 1000 times as energetic as our best, most powerful earth-bound particle accelerator, the LHC, can accomplish They also stated that is 15 orders of magnitude more energetic than normal light.

For the C-R theory, this is yet another outrageously high-energy source of electrons, traceable to a specific astronomical object Whatever the source, it is also highly variable, and capable of very rapid changes.

Another (unrelated) new thought that did occur to me was that, if the newly-discovered excess-electron-filled lobes above and below our galaxy's center bulge are filled with the energy of about 100,000 supernovas, that is almost 4 supernovas-worth of excess energy for every visitor (so far) to this C-R theory web-site When I think in terms like that (positively) rather than negatively, like trying to change the remaining 7 billion skeptics in this world, one by one, I can be amazed by the progress.

The real question is: How can I change how those not-yet-converted [my target audience], think about Black-Holes ^C-R (vs generic black holes), almost singlehandedly?

Technology is improving almost daily, and astronomers are finding-out about new ways to measure the environment in space in ways that were never anticipated, before. That science is continually finding conditions almost exactly like (only) the C-R theory would expect is something that most theories can only dream about, but are rarely rewarded-with.

Conditions like electrical charges and magnetic fields that should be ruled-out by common textbook understanding of black hole operation (like assuming electrical neutrality) and the expected collapse into a "non-understandable" singularity, have hamstrung conventional scientists thought processes This has blinded them to not even thinking about the possibility of trying to LOOK-AT the conditions found around Black-Holes ^C-R first, and THEN awterwards, to make-up their minds about how the Black-Holes ^C-R actually operate, based-upon the observed evidence.

Since we cannot simply visit a Black-Hole ^C-R, and do experiments nearby {or inside them (*except for our universe, here and now)}, we are stuck entirely using tools operating from earth (or relatively nearby) to test ALL of our conclusions.

I would agree with most scientists, that, by THEIR books, the C-R theory IS WRONG [and impossible, too], but I differ in the opinion that it is those books that may be in error, rather than the C-R theory, if the evidence has any relevance in the matter. There is entirely too much electrical activity, with too many electrical imbalances in too many locations, for an electrically neutral universe to make sense.

A small problem with the Electrical Universe type theories is that they lack a causative mechanism They simply suspect that the electrical currents come from "somewhere else", and continue circulating around The question to them is: Why?

Of the theories that I know-of, only the C-R theory has a viable causative mechanism to explain where these observed electrical charges and magnetic fields come from Conventional theory can only state that, as far as they know, nothing like that should be occurring, so there is no perceived need to look for or test for electrical items.

With the increase in knowledge, science may start to catch-up to where the C-R theory has already been, when it comes to explaining the WHY of things that are seen. If the C-R theory can help to guide others to show where to look, what to notice, and what to observe, then how to understand the processes going on It may make more sense to learn from someone who predicted these spare electrical charges beforehand, rather than learning from those who deny the possibility of their existence.

30 years ago, there was very little evidence of excess electrons in the common literature The multiple positive ionizations in thousand-year-old supernova remnants were not known about, either Way back then, we did not have Google and Bing and other search engines that we could type in phrases or search items with, we had to physically trek-out to a suitably-stocked library, and hunt through stacks of books or magazines to find the things that we can get in a few seconds now.

[For those who did not experience it, it was not all bad, either By looking through stacks of magazines and books, one often noticed other seemingly irrelevant things that were not in the target search, that might actually be useful or interesting That is how I encountered many of the diverse items that I somewhat remember from those earlier days I did not take extensive notes way back then (and still do not do so now, most of the time), but I do remember that I read about these phenomena somewhere, and it is easier to weave those items in to my mind's paradigms.]

I even encountered one of the next key items from the C-R theory, in Discover magazines top 100 science items of 2010 Mainstream science is finally considering that space may not be identical in all directions [or isotropic], but that conditions change from place to place That is still not quite the same as recognizing that, if we live in a closed universe, that imposes a preferred reference frame over us, which mandates different conditions, imposed upon different locations, by their relative position.

If you can connect that with the idea that, if gravitational curvature changes the local conditions of matter, by location, there may be SYSTEM-WIDE conditions that can be measured, noticed, and connected-in to one's overall mental picture of our universe. {If you cannot, or will not do so, you WILL FAIL to understand the C-R theory, guaranteed.}

The C-R theory contends that you, the home-reader, can start to re-understand our universe, if you are willing to make some very simple changes to your common thinking.

Some new thoughts for 2011: I was reading an article about our sun's heliopause, or the location where our sun's protective bubble from the solar wind dies out, and the nature of outer space (beyond the sun's influence) takes over NASA is monitoring the Voyager satellites as they continue on their journey out of our solar system.

It occurred to me that, if our sun is actually emitting huge quantities of excess electrons on a continual basis, and that mainstream science has no clue that this is happening, the influence on the positively-charged cosmic rays coming from beyond our solar system could actually be accelerated inward In addition, there might be some other measurable influences that could be noticed or checked-on.

The article I read said that the sun's heliopause did extend out further than "science" initially expected Could it be because there is an added influence that has not only not been expected, but that has never been looked-for, either.  I suspect that some evidence, either way, might already exist Since the thought just occurred to me this year, it is something new. ("New items" is one area where home-readers might be aware of data I have not yet encountered, or some at home may think of new ways to test or challenge existing dogma.. )  One of the reasons I mention it is that new ideas still pop into my head, every so often, and the "final Version" of the C-R theory is not yet "set in concrete".

Now that we have some spacecraft going beyond this heliopause, will observations be made that give science the idea that they have indeed missed what space beyond the sun's influence is really like.  At least, we will have data from a new vantage point to consider, which may be "unfiltered" by a large bubble of excess electrons as well as a huge magnetic-field bubble.

Another idea I have been considering for quite a while suggests a need to revise (refine) my initial ideas about generic Black-Holes ^C-R and the equality of the turn-off process, or nothingness [the over-the-speed-of-light escape velocity region] If I consider Black-Holes ^C-R at various locations within our full (closed) universe, I might need to factor-in a correction or a gradient factor.

Where this gets most interesting is: if that is the case for Black-Holes ^C-R INSIDE our universe, is something like that also the case for our universe, if our universe is one of many, many more smaller Black-Holes ^C-R located somewhere inside an even larger closed-off universe.  If so, this would establish an external (outside of our universe) based bias on the inner contents of this universe I have read that just such a flow or temperature bias may have been located in regions far-away from earth, but within this universe The appearance has been interpreted that the focus of this modulation seems to lie outside of our universe's observable boundaries. [See dark flow as a topic.]

Of course, I have no clue as to where inside an even larger universe our universe would be located Nearer the center, scattered to the outskirts of the farthest edges, or somewhere inbetween That I remember, I have not yet blogged upon that topic, since it would introduce even more contention into an already contentious situation Since dark flow is a topic of current interest, I decided to state that the C-R theory does have an opinion, and a C-R theory "spin" to comment upon.

I read about the topic of dark flow, which mainstream science is trying to fit into a hidden-universe slightly interacting with our universe [or parallel-to it], while possibly co-existing in the same spatial locations with us, something-like multiplexing broadcast radio stations, where many "sub-channels" share the same frequency and use the same antenna, but co-existing peacefully with little or no co-interference with each other.

The C-R theory "spin" on this idea is that our universe may be a sub-part of a much larger whole [as a little portion inside-of a much-fuller system], rather than one-of-many, kind-of overlaid upon each other, in separate-but-distinct layers, something like what book pages act like, with each page laying upon each next consecutive page in a book.

What I am trying to share is that my concepts from the C-R theory are still evolving, and I am still accumulating new ideas with every passing year I believe that I might be trying to see an even bigger picture of the whole, well before mainstream science sees even the smaller picture {from the C-R theory vantage point}.

I am trying not to be too dogmatic to my initial concepts, and yet to be flexible enough to accommodate the newest findings If the C-R theory is at all wrong, there should be abundant evidence just laying-about to show that it is incorrect When I search, what I keep finding is the types of "outrageous anomalies" that only the C-R theory could use and love It is possible that I have on "selected blinders", where I only see what I want to see That is why I am trying to share these expectations, on line, and publicly, of where to look, what to test-for, and why to expect it That way, if others find these same things, too, then it is not just me.

What I hope to offer is for home-readers to take the C-R theory and put it to your own tests Look for evidence which seems to support it, and look for observations that should rule it out Do not just use the items that I suggest, but look for similar items that are already known about and reported in the existing literature, and brand-new items too Both types-of items should be available and freely announced to anyone with an internet connection.

If conventional theory is true, and the C-R theory is totally wrong, one would think it should be easy to find abundant evidence that it is wrong, and hard to find evidence that would seem to back it up Just the opposite is what I regularly find I find little or nothing that would disprove it, and many items that seem to need the C-R theory's help to make good-sense of them.

If only one or two items on the entire internet favored the C-R theory, I would be skeptical For the last 30 years or more, I regularly find items that seem to agree with the C-R theory that there is some mighty interesting electrical behavior in almost every direction It is conceivable that I am deliberately missing evidence that disproves the C-R theory, or not looking in the right places.

I invite all my home-readers to send in links to articles that describe any real observations (not just a new theory of what SHOULD be happening) that indicate the C-R theory is wrong Surely, someone out there can come up with items that go against what I have described The universe is big enough that something should be known about that could easily determine that the C-R theory ideas are wrong.

If anyone else out there finds nothing that seems to disprove it, but many items that seem to support it, I would also appreciate your findings Again, I am reminded of my favorite Chico Marx quote (and he is not often quoted) "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?"

Please check the evidence and the findings in books, magazines, and web sites, and see if what is described matches what the C-R theory claims should be expected.

To paraphrase from another famous quote, "We all know your theory is crazy The real question is: Is it crazy ENOUGH?. "  That question has never been asked of the C-R theory, that I could find.

Look for indications of excess electrical currents, intense magnetic fields, polarized em-band (electromagnetic) waves, from radio, infrared, light, uv, at least up, into the X-rays Something [with energy] must be polarizing those waves Look for excess electrons around feeding Black-Holes ^C-R, and look for excess positive charges in very old supernova remnants Only if you find ALL of those items, simultaneously, should you consider the C-R theory to be vindicated (or supported). {Hint: If they weren't found in abundance, would I tout that as refuting support or proof?}

I would like to start covering single topics more thoroughly, starting in my next blog, unless nature intervenes and provides some fresh irresistible new evidence for the C-R theory's correctness I would like to cover ideas like curvature, a closed universe, the properties of the C-R theory brand Black-Holes ^C-R, the real causes of redshift and blueshift, and how to exploit the differences in matter and energy to recycle, refresh and renew matter and energy, and restore entropy to a lower value using simple new ideas.

(If I am wrong, I WOULD like to know it, so I don't keep making a fool of myself.)

I look-forward to soon blogging again, and trying to share more fresh aspects from the C-R theory ideas with anyone willing to listen (or read) about it Thank you for visiting this web-site.

Jerry A. Reynard.  January 11, 2011