First, I would like to welcome our 43,000^th visitor, and everyone else, too.  This blog may be posted after your arrival.  [That count of visitors only covers the home page, and not the many other pages home-readers can visit.]

      I do not know if the international crowd enjoyed it as much, but that blog was the most fun one for me in a very long time.  My webmaster thinks I should add some humor to all the blogs, rather than letting it build-up for a few years, then spring it out all at once.  I keep hoping that mainstream science will start to take seriously the experiment, where home-readers can test for themselves what happens when an object tossed into “lesser” curvature transitions from a greater-curvature state, visits the lower curvature region, but must cut the visit short, and return back to the greatest curvature. I suspect that thousands of individuals will want to kick themselves for missing something “so obvious” yet so profound, if the C-R theory ideas are ever accepted.  The sad part is that knowledge of: “How nature works” was “hidden in plain sight” all along.

      To return back to standard science again, after my April-Fool’s Day blog, I would like to continue addressing concerns from new articles that I have read, and items I have learned about, that should be of interest to all home readers..

      In a list of the top 600 items of interest from NASA, from the noteworthy things on their list from the year 2010, one of the items admitted that, even with their best supercomputer simulations of a supernova explosion for a very massive star, the equations for the fusion process just fizzled-out, and did not let that star explode.  They could approximate what is seen in a less massive star, but, in the obese ones, gravity won-out, and kept the star from exploding.

      While this failure to explode is bad news for standard science, I consider it a win for the C-R theory.  In the C-R theory’s account, if a Black-Hole ^C-R is involved in the supernova process [and, in the C-R theory, it is], then as the more massive star consumes more proton-neutron rich diet (and stores those contents in a Neutral Zone ^C-R, in an electrically neutral manner), by design, that star becomes more unstable as it eats more.  

      All that is needed is some eventual external gravitational disturbance to come-along and shift the contents of the Neutral Zone ^C-R just-enough that any part of those contents will become unstable if the envelope (or region) they are stored-in is sufficiently disturbed.  

      Remember that, in the C-R theory pathway, the neutralized protons, and proton-neutron combinations are immediately inside the Black-Hole ^C-R, but they are also conveniently available for some space-warping disturbance to eventually permit.

      Since most known supernova explosions happen to occur in binary pairs, whether both participants are “stars”, or one is a star, and one is a Black-Hole ^C-R, that should suffice.

      NOTE: In the C-R theory process, even most “standard or conventional stars” might have a Black-Hole ^C-R at their center.  This includes our star, the sun.  By powering any star with a Black-Hole ^C-R, rather than “standard” fusion that regular science believes-in, the energy efficiency released from hydrogen would increase to up to 50% of it’s rest-mass energy, as compared to the 0.7% efficiency released fusing hydrogen atoms into helium. {For a star somewhat similar to our sun, with a normal listing, from the H-R diagram pathway, fusion is the only power source, as is written-about in the textbooks}

There IS no OOPS in failure to confine charges, when that “failure” is pre-planned!!!

      A supernova working by the C-R theory pathway, powered by, essentially, continually storing-up and packing-in the Black-Hole’s ^C-R ionized dinners of protons and neutrons, will have the explosive power needed to overcome gravity, and is not subject to gravity winning out over the outward force of fusion only when a star is relatively slim and less massive.

      When looking at “the standard equations”, conventional theory totally ignores the contribution to instability that dining-exclusively on ionized nuclei has for setting-up every Black-Hole ^C-R to a catastrophic-failure at some time during it’s extended lifetime. Because mainstream science simply looks at the C-R scenario, where the Black-Hole ^C-R eats the proton-neutron combinations, and sends the electrons whizzing-away in high-speed jets, and says, “That scenario does not happen, so we can safely ignore that possibility.” [Actually, they discard that possibility before ever evaluating it for feasibility, because they simply cannot accept that nature works that way.]

      The explosive potential of a supernova provided by the C-R theory obeying Black-Holes ^C-R, eventually becomes the second greatest “known” motive-force available to science; after a pure matter-antimatter encounter, but science discards that idea because they are trained NOT to think along those lines.  Since science has essentially “discarded” the next-best explanation, after antimatter annihilation, they are “stuck-with” the lesser ideas, like fusion, which is still very powerful, in it’s own right.

      Fortunately, the Black-Holes ^C-R themselves have not read the earth’s physics books, to “know” they’re not supposed to do that.  Science may yet learn that this is what really goes on in these cases, if and when they learn to pay attention to the high level of continuing excess multi-positive-ionizations detected in supernova remnants, especially for those in the many-thousands of years-old categories.

      I would even accept it if they still said this C-R method cannot work, but they still used it to approximate the “right answers” “for calculation purposes only”, and used it to understand and to calculate the aftermath of the phenomena, all while maintaining “but science does not really work like this”, to get the right answers, or to get an answer somewhere in the proper “magnitude-ballpark”.

The OBJECTIONS to the C-R theory pathway

      There are objections that mainstream science has to the C-R theory type operation, and I would like to comment-upon them.  The objections are not insignificant, but they do represent science rejecting a “simple”, new way to understand how Black-Holes ^C-R operate.

      Normally, science is very conservative, and scientists are loath to discard the currently accepted answers for a more speculative (or newer) answer.  When the evidence grows overwhelming that something is amiss, and that science does not understand some process enough to account for all of the observations, that is when either a revised theory, which explains the differences, or a whole new theory, which replaces the incorrect version, takes over.

      There is no group of equations I am currently aware-of that provides the C-R theory with insight into these matters.  There is no laboratory where one can test Black-Holes ^C-R, or even the generic black holes. The ideas themselves are, however, very simple and basic, and the explanation is “reasonable”, if one keeps the end-objectives in mind.

      The first new idea is that whenever a Black-Hole ^C-R eats some mass, that mass does not enter into the Black-Hole ^C-R unaffected or unfazed, as some classical theories maintain.  Rather, the matter enters going through the most stressful time, and the most extreme conditions it will ever face*. [*The C-R theory DOES NOT believe in the Big Bang, or in our universe’s emergence from a starting singularity, so those conditions were NEVER faced by matter, and never will be.]

      This means that the Black-Hole ^C-R, with it’s gravity so intense that not even light can escape, stresses matter and energy entering inside far greater than anything we can ever test.  While the C-R theory cannot duplicate those conditions, it can anticipate a different approach, or a new twist on the old doctrines.  For this reason, paying close attention to what we can detect (with less speculating on what we miss), is why the C-R theory reaches far different conclusions.

      I would like to expand upon the standard objections more upcoming blogs, so I can include the material I have already written, below.

EXTREME CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS

      Where the conditions become extreme, upon entering ANY Black-Hole ^C-R, the ONLY volume or region so totally affected lies immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  What the C-R theory proposes is that, in this extreme state, when the escape velocity is ABOVE the speed-of-light, this TWISTED region decouples, shifts, phases-out, or prevents all “known” electromagnetic interactions we are familiar with, and keeps them from operating normally.  {and this encounter with a Black-Hole ^C-R suppresses all of those conditions that science DOES truly understand}.  In the simplest terms, it “turns-off” both matter and energy, and places them in an inactivated, or suspended state, where they become inoperative.  HINT: this process is “unknown” to science, but incredibly useful. [And easy for humans to understand, because this “confinement” prevents any free interactions]

      Let me state, I cannot conclusively PROVE this concept, but I did come to [suspect or] understand that this is the path that nature has chosen to use, and I am trying to explain this simple plan to anyone willing to listen.  Please read-on, then consider the merits of this “new-thinking”, as a “package” deal, all or nothing.

      Let me also state, the above “neutralized-storage” concept is useless, by itself, unless it is paired-with a Black-Hole ^C-R that selectively ionizes, sorts, or strips-off some or ALL of the electrons, before it eats the nucleus.  By the oddest of (wink-wink) “co-incidences”, it does so by sorting it’s dinner BY MASS. [using the most extreme gravity conditions known to science].  This sorting process coincidentally strips-off and discards, or frees, all of the electrons, too.

      This concept is something like, if I were to blindfold you, and ask you to sort, by the best way, between a bowling ball, and a spread-out, lightweight, fluffy and puffy cotton ball, stretched-out to its maximum possible dimensions, I would tell you to keep the mass, and discard the fluff.  Even so handicapped (or challenged), with the blindfold, virtually any of us could easily sort the two perfectly, every time, without any type of difficulty.  We understand that selection process.

IRONY: [Sort-of NOT sorted, is all of what science now understands]

      Under the standard conditions that science “believes”, this charge-sorting, by mass will yield no benefits, as the attractions to the opposite charges are way too strong, and “Newtonian gravity” would not be strong-enough to affect electrical charges.  Since gravity, which is some 40 orders-of-magnitude (or 10⁴⁰ times) weaker, science says it cannot sort mass by MASS (or by weight) and dispose of the electrons, as: in the trash.

      The innovation only comes when one accepts the pair of conditions together, and understands the possibility of using BOTH new-ideas simultaneously, which only the C-R theory does.  Pairing the innovations, one can then see the advantages gained.  I cannot rationally explain to you HOW I came to understand “nature’s plan”, but, “OOPS”, I did.

      What I can state is: only if you understand and accept both of those conditions, can you come to observe, notice, and appreciate the hints that nature gives in “known phenomena”.  In my blogs these last few years, I have systematically included virtually every common report I have come-across, emphasizing large electrical currents, strong ionizations, magnetic fields, radio waves, X-rays, gamma-rays, and electrical (or electromagnetic related) items, anything that seems to fit-in to the C-R theory’s hypothesis.

      What then must still happen is that these accumulated electrical charges (protons and proton-neutrons) eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R, and stored-up in a neutralized manner, eventually becomes “unstable enough” to allow the triggering of a release mechanism.  This “mass-jailbreak-like release” could also be similar to a “Jack-in-the-box” also triggering the escape of the Jack, when one comes to the POP, in the tune for “POP-goes-the-weasel”.

      What I do understand is that mainstream science has “ignored” any possibility that “Nature” could or would exploit a deliberate condition like “mass-separation of electrical charges”, if it could be created.  What I am therefore trying to do is alert you home-readers to both the potential advantages to be gained, and show why such a concept IS almost retro-actively obvious. {After enough rank amateurs understand what is going-on, maybe we can collectively convince the experts who will reject these ideas.}

      After that, I will try to point-out where to look, what to look-for, what to notice, and why to suspect that something like this IS ALREADY going-on ALL AROUND us.  ALL one has to do is to observe the clues, “connect the dots”, and consider the benefits to nature, gained by this “NEW” mechanism.

      I will accept the critic’s point that the burden of proof, for accepting these two new [or imaginary] concepts rests entirely upon the C-R theory.  What I contend is: these ideas explain much, and give ones better insight into what is happening.

      For instance, if Black-Holes ^C-R do eat the mass, and strip-off the electrons, should we not expect to see some evidence of lightweight electrons “magnetically bunching-together” via. their magnetic fields? This causes the electrons* to escape, rushing-away into two collimated jets, and easily explaining: “*Just What” is lightweight and energetic enough to be fleeing all of those massive Black-Holes ^C-R in those high-speed jets, at 99.99% of lightspeed?

      Our Milky-Way galaxy’s two 25,000 light-year-tall lobes, filled-up with over 100,000 supernova’s-worth of energy {measuring 7 million degrees} becomes a lot more palatable when one understands the source for both the energy, and for the electrons, or EXPECTS it’s cause.

      The flux-tube current, between Jupiter and Io, cyclicly recurring once in every Io-orbit around Jupiter, with up-to 5,000,000 AMPS at it’s peak, (and with every Amp representing an “Avogadro’s number” of electrical charges, per second), also becomes “more-reasonable” when that quantity of spare electrons is up for grabs, or available.

      The numbers and intensities of thunderstorms occurring on planets like Jupiter and Saturn, and the aurora’s visible on Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Titan, and on and on also take on new significance.  The magnetic levels of the solar flares, solar prominences, CME’s [Coronal Mass Ejections], and sunspots indicate some high level of electrical activity on the sun.

      {I did read that earth’s aurora alone can have a folded-dipole current measured at one million amps.  That is only here on earth, where we live.}

      When one considers the levels of POLARIZED light coming from galaxies, is it as “unreasonable” to posit that electromagnetism might contribute to “holding-together” a galaxy’s spinning arms, and driving the twisting-magnetic forces into the familiar spiral shape, in at least some cases?

      What I am attempting to do is to suggest a “reasonableness” to these heretofore randomly considered events, and suggest that there is an underlying commonality [or pattern] between them, having a root-cause.  I will then leave it to the home-readers to decide for themselves whether they are convinced, or at least, intrigued, by the possibilities.  The case is certainly not iron-clad, or final, but there seems to be indications of SOMETHING “C-R-like” happening.

      The dilemma becomes, is it the C-R theory-related events that drive these electrical phenomenon, or is it something else? If there is insufficient “proof” now, I expect, as the newest observations continually restock the C-R theory’s evidence-bin, home-readers will notice common themes suggested by only the C-R theory.

      By all means, reject these ideas, if they do not “bear fruit”, and explain much to you. If the new observations are merely random, and not interconnected to electromagnetic interactions, if they show no conclusive pattern of charge-separation on a massive scale, if polarized light, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and the like-type phenomena are not almost always found simultaneously, feel free to reject them.  If you do sense some new patterns, and find the C-R theory useful to explain the “WHY?” you are seeing them, then feel more confident as time goes by.

No Gas-shortage Here!!!

      Another interesting article, in the previous month’s issue of Astronomy magazine, for April 2012, on page 16, an article mentioned that there is a good sized gas cloud, about 3 times earth’s mass, heading for our galaxy’s center at 5 million miles per hour [or 8 million kph].  That gas cloud should encounter the Black-Hole ^C-R there, named SGR A* (Sagittarius A star), around June of next year (2013).  

      That should give someone the opportunity to notice if the intense jets of high speed matter (rushing-away at 99.99% of the speed-of-light), appears AFTER the Black-Hole ^C-R eats that matter, but first strips-off the electrons.  It will be interesting to see just how quickly, if at all, the high-speed jets will appear after the Black-Hole ^C-R there, starts dining.  

      NOTE: By the C-R theory, these jets will not appear if the Black-Hole ^C-R is quiescent, or not eating.  Unless “dinner” is present in large quantities, no jets will exist.

      By standard thinking, the radiation coming from outside the event horizon (the place where matter simply disappears after it is eaten) is caused only by the heat from the excessive friction.  The gas, rubbing-together with other matter, will release extreme energy from the whirlpool’s vortex, and generate that heat and light we detect as coming from there.  It would also be where the optical glow will be at a maximum.

      Probably, the C-R theory is the only theory advocating the almost total negative-electrical-charge removal, and the separation of those electrons from the heavier nuclei, which will also become fully-ionized when they are eaten.

      NOTE: The C-R theory says: It is the sudden appearance of those stripped-off, negative electrons that creates the electrical imbalances, and disturbances to generate the enormous energies there.  These electrons release the electrical potential to create the X-rays, gamma rays, and radio waves, that the simple action of friction alone cannot explain.

      Conventional theory also does not accept or believe that once the positive charges enter immediately-inside the Black-Hole ^C-R, that those positive charges can be suspended, turned-off, temporarily [not permanently] neutralized, or inactivated, and that all external knowledge of those charges becomes “lost” or invisible and undetectable from the outside.  This would include suppressing or isolating and insulating any presence of their magnetic fields from the inside, (although the magnetic fields from the electrons remaining outside are fair-game, and will not be suppressed).  

      Of course, since science “claims”: there is no external evidence of the massive quantities of positive charge trapped inside, (that the C-R theory says is stored-up there), science thinks that absence “proves” that nothing like that condition of excess charges exists on the inside.

      Again, the C-R theory introduces the “NEW” concept of exploiting the most extreme conditions, [where the escape velocity EXCEEDS lightspeed], as nature’s way of taking advantage of, and redeeming, an otherwise impossible situation.  If conventional matter collapsed into a singularity, and the most extreme conditions WERE THERE, at the center, there would be a barren, desert-like, gap, void, or barrier, needing to be crossed for both incoming matter, and any outgoing “knowledge-of that matter”.  All theories yield that, because of these extreme conditions, we [humanity] have little hope of ever accessing, or interacting-with anything at that singularity.  Because “known-conditions” are grossly exceeded, our common-sense, everyday rules of physics, quantum interactions, gravity, and anything else fall prey to oblivion, at worst, or a severe-isolation, at the least.

      The C-R theory is trying to offer the home-readers “A Considerably lesser-evil”, [to understand], when choosing between “The lesser of two evils”.  

      I just picked-up the newest issue of Scientific American, for April 2012, and there was an interesting article by Steven Carlip, titled Quantum Gravity in Flatland.  This article is the closest concept I have seen in the mainstream media to suggesting that by considering a 2-D version of gravity theory, somewhat dealing with a Flatland-like (but simplified) universe, might yield clues to understanding gravity in an easier-to-calculate, and simplified mathematical setting.  I did sense that approach comes closer to appreciating the geometric-like contribution to gravity, [or topology], not needing a speed-of-light-like radiation (from a distance).

      Unfortunately, the article did miss that, if we live in a closed universe, that would superimpose a preferred reference frame over the universe, that could finally show how gravity changes matter, by location.  I just got the magazine today, and I am adding-in this portion, after the rest of this blog was already written.  Since I considered this concept important, I wanted to comment now, rather than waiting until the next blog.

      Since the article misses that our closed universe does change matter, by location, and that concept fits-in well with the local topological contribution that this article does cover, it would explain to the home reader more fully what the C-R theory’s concept is. If the home-reader can keep in mind that extra idea, then this article may help one understand gravity WITHOUT needing gravitational radiation (or gravitons) to affect the changes.  The topology [or the geometry] literally changes, by position.

      In the C-R theory concept, at the center of our universe (also known as “The Great Attractor”, an ironically inappropriate name, because it does nothing of the kind), matter is in the least curved state in this universe.  As one proceeds in any direction outward, curvature slowly increases until we reach the fully curved (or closed-off) positions, at our universe’s outer edge.

      Our position on earth is, closer to the Great Attractor, and farther from all the outer edges.  Since we are more slowed-down that “The Great Attractor”, everything there is blueshifted to us, because it is clocking faster, and NOT because we are being attracted to it.  Further out, in any direction, everything is redshifted to us.  Again, objects are redshifted because they are “gravitationally” more slowed-down, and they ARE clocking-slower than we are.  NOTE: No dark energy is needed to maintain this status.  Because all outward-lying objects are “worth less energy”, they are NOT PERMITTED to fall inwards, without acquiring more energy.  This process totally stabilizes our universe, and makes collapse “inward” impossible.

      NOTE: In spite of the increasing redshift in ALL directions, our universe

IS NOT expanding.  (Therefore, the expansion is not expanding, either.  The expansion was an artifact derived after “falsely” correcting “the observed data”, then drawing conclusions from it, after it was corrupted, or changed to earth’s time-rate.)

      Another interesting article in an earlier issue of Scientific American was about the long-term future of both our universe, and more specifically, our galaxy, maybe 200 billion years into the future (under the Big Bang scenario).  It discusses the types of phenomena that would still be visible, and the changes that would be apparent as compared to today’s universe.

      The C-R theory would disagree, and state that our universe would appear almost identical to today’s appearance, but with some re-arranging of the inhabitants of the universe.  Unfortunately, there is no quick way to test either outcome, short of waiting most of that full time-frame and then, taking measurements.

      This is one area where we may eventually gather-up enough evidence beforehand, that we almost surely will not have to wait the full period of time to tell what the universe will look like, then.  Even if we need only wait a billion years into the future to tell if the C-R theory is correct (or wrong), that interval is too large to inspire immediate confidence in the C-R theory.

      What I would hope to accomplish is to suggest likely areas where the differences in theory-outcomes might be made known much earlier.  If sufficient evidence is found showing large contributions from electromagnetic fields, perhaps science will concede some level of grudging acknowledgment that maybe the C-R theory is not all bad and useless.

      Some reasonable and logical arguments from the C-R theory.

      There are esoteric levels of understanding from the C-R theory, where the overall plan for this universe comes across with good reasoning, definite (and not nebulous or undefined) uses for Black-Holes ^C-R and “new” properties derived from storage conditions of the matter concerned.

NATURE’S ASSET RECOVERY MODES, as a role-model

      If I were to argue about nature’s fondness for recovering assets after their initial use (or at least, the last, or most recent use or cycle), there is very little chance of something on earth being placed in such a state where the difficulty of accessing it would prevent nature from re-using it, or finding new uses for expired, dead, expended, worn-out, lost, misplaced anything (just fill in the blank), and something on earth will try to take it, eat it, move it, recycle it, build with it, live in or on it, or just do something useful with it.

      There is virtually no environment on earth, (except, maybe, molten lava), where some lifeform will give-up entirely on using [or reusing] anything discarded, eliminated, decayed, shed, buried, stored, or protected by some other lifeforms.  From the sand resulting from wearing-down a towering mountain, to the chalk deposits, built up from years of forminifera dying in the oceans, nature simply seems to feel obligated to re-use almost everything, recycle everything, recover almost everything, somewhere down the line, but more-often, as soon as possible.

      From this principle, I would feel comfortable in arguing that nature would extend that same philosophy (or intentional design principle), and have it function elsewhere in this universe, when it comes to letting valuable matter go to waste, or be re-used.  That I know of, only the C-R theory has a built-in mechanism for nature pre-planning the “asset recovery” of even the most seemingly insignificant faded-out white dwarf star comet, asteroid, gas cloud, or supernova remnant, to include every atom, and every sub-atomic particle ever eaten by ANY Black-Hole ^C-R!!!

      Conventional theory seems to be content with nature “patiently” waiting for up to 10¹⁰⁰ years before the conventional black holes to start to radiate-away, by Hawking radiation, sometime in the far-far distant future.

      HINT: The C-R theory will explain why there is never any Hawking radiation, and never can be anything like that. [I will mention it, but not cover that, here, in this blog.]

      I would argue that nature on earth has nowhere near that level of patience to wait that long, and rarely lets something as lowly as one fallen leaf “to sit around to do nothing” with that level of consistency.  How much more likely is it then, that nature would let an entire star (or stellar remnant) sit idly by, un-harvested and unused for eons upon eons?

      While I cannot prove it, I can claim it, and suggest there is a much more active, much more practical mechanism in place, and suggest how science can recognize it’s footprint (or activities) almost everywhere that one looks.

      The C-R theory also would contend with the almost universal statements that nothing that enters a conventional black hole ever comes out again.  By their very nature, the C-R theory obeying Black-Holes ^C-R, [or, ALL of them], not one measly little proton gets eaten before nature has the plan in hand for how to recover 100% of everything eaten.  In short, the C-R theory never faces the dilemma of how to recover matter eaten by a Black-Hole ^C-R.

      Another area of contention is the currently popular idea in the mainstream that most of the information about matter which falls into a conventional black hole is somehow contained, or encoded two dimensionally, kind-of as a hologram.  One thing in common, is that this holographic information is thought to lie immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius, although mainstream science has no idea how nature could use, or access this information, or recover anything from it.

      If any theoreticians would like to set up a potential usefulness “battle-of-the concepts”, I would be more than happy to pit the C-R theory’s Neutral Zone ^C-R concept against the conventional theory’s holographic principle.  In a battle of “human understandability”, the C-R theory’s Neutral Zone ^C-R should win, hands-down. {Believability might be lost, but I did not stake that in this battle.}

      The second part of the battle should pit usefulness of the concept for C-R vs. standard theory.  Since the usefulness of the Neutral Zone ^C-R both restores entropy, and recycles all matter and energy eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R, and it also provides an ecologically simple source of those high-energy positive particles, a.k.a., cosmic rays, whereas the holographic principle still has no practical way to extract anything back out (at the speed-of-light, anyway).

      Whether the home-readers will believe the C-R theory’s concepts or not, I will challenge anyone to extract more “potentially-useful-to nature” benefits from any conventional black hole, vs. the claims made about every Black-Hole ^C-R.  If the principle of Occams’ razor can be invoked, that the simplest overall concept, with the easiest to understand mechanism is the most likely to be correct, the C-R theory should win that battle, too.

A listing of practical concepts where the C-R theory might be useful to science.

      I wanted to summarize a listing of where I believe the C-R theory ideas can be useful to science.  If the C-R theory is right (and maybe even if it is totally wrong), these simple, new ideas are still areas where it is useful to know and to evaluate the differences.

      A List of Unique, C-R theory Ideas:

A: We live in a NON-isotropic universe.  Science made a terrible mistake of believing relativity, where there is no preferred reference-frame, and they have maintained that everywhere else in this universe is the same, property wise, as here on earth.

B: Science has missed such an obvious point, that the Black-Hole ^C-R has many differences.  Here are some of the main differences in our “brand-name Black-Holes ^C-R:

            1. The real action takes place across the Schwarzschild radius [also called the event horizon].

            2. The Black-Hole ^C-R is pre-designed to exploit this condition, where the escape velocity IS ABOVE the “speed-of-light”.

            3.  The Black-Hole ^C-R sorts mass BY MASS, rejecting the lightweight, flighty, more kineticly-active electrons, and eating [capturing, too] the now-ionized protons and proton-neutron combinations.

            4.  The storage conditions immediately inside the Schwarzschikd radius [and not at the center, in a singularity], confine and store the proton-proton-neutrons in a neutralized condition, that cannot be sensed externally, while this mode is intact.

            5.  The Black-Hole ^C-R stores-up THE ONLY KNOWN force THAT CAN overcome gravity, in a real-world setting.

            6.  The storage condition also “forces” matter back-into a more concentrated state, reversing entropy.  NOTE: The Neutral Zone ^C-R simply cannot obey the second law of thermodynamics, or the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to matter in that condition.

            7.  No speed-of-light radiation can be emitted by a Black-Hole ^C-R, period.

            8.  Gravity is caused by the “action” of curvature “affecting” the “energy-containing capacity” of each participating mass, locally. [NOT radiated in, from a distance, but changed right where the mass resides]

            9.  The “force” of gravity IS NOT RECONCILABLE with the other 3 forces, the strong force, the (electro)weak force, and electromagnetism.  Gravity uses an “indirect” cause, if you will, an aftereffect.  HINT: If I squeezed a wet sponge, and water came-out, that would be natural, and understandable.  Think along a similar line, for how gravity extracts energy from matter as it drops.  Otherwise, for a mass to be lifted-up, something, [you?] must add the actual energy to allow the total energy-value of the mass to increase.  This energy directly affects the mass, either, by letting it “clock faster”, or by actually increasing it’s energy by the exact value of the energy used.

            10. A lifted-up mass is NOT equal to a dropped-down mass.  Some incremental property of the mass itself changes.  Each mass “carries it’s energy with it”, the energy does not come-from “elsewhere”, and does not vanish into the void.  (Science has totally missed this concept, and gotten it WRONG.)

      C: The specific electrical behavior of Black-Holes ^C-R creates enormous electrical imbalances, magnetic fields, polarizations of EM energy.

      D: Our universe IS the inside region [the Active Zone ^C-R] of a universe-sized Black-Hole ^C-R.

      E: Our universe IS “a laboratory-model version” of the inside of a Black-Hole ^C-R, readily available for our study.  HINT: EVERY property visible in our universe IS a property of EVERY inside of a Black-Hole ^C-R, but on a much larger scale.

      F: The 2.7K background radiation has nothing to do with a Big Bang, and IS NOT proof-of-it.  It is a cooled-off, diluted version of everyday events, averaged-out over time.

      G: The 2.7K will not redshift (or cool down) with time, as it would do if it really was the remaining echo of the Big Bang.

      H: The 2.7K value is NOT the same elsewhere in this universe, but varies by location.

      I: Our universe IS NOT Isochronic {iso=same, chronos=time}, [with everything happening at the same time rate everywhere], but the time-rate varies by location, decreasing with the distance from the center, where the time-rate is not slowed-down.

      J: Since both redshifts, {increasing in all directions}, and a blueshift, {increasing in magnitude, closer to one location}, are visible, this demonstrates that our universe operates at internally varying time-rates, changing continually, by location.

      K: Only a {gravitationally} CLOSED universe would show this “varying time-rate property” mentioned in “I” above.

      L: A CLOSED universe has exactly the right amount of mass at the correct density to close-off spacetime, from the inside.  It is stable, and cannot expand or contract without acquiring additional energy, or shedding energy “without radiating it away, outside”.  The C-R theory view is: this is not just a coincidence, but that, once enough mass/energy at the right density comes together, the “universe-inside” kind-of closes itself off from the external world.

      HINT: EVERY Black-Hole ^C-R has a closed-universe inside so CLOSED UNIVERSES are not that rare. {They are common.}

      M: Only the C-R theory contends that “gravity” does not and cannot add-to or take-away-from the energy when the photon (the individual particle of energy/light) travels about in a “gravitational field” travelling at it’s standard “speed-of-light”.  Rather, when the measurer claims that they have measured changes in the photon, they are really measuring is that THEIR energy reference level has varied [changed] as compared to the photon, and THIS is what changed.

      HINT: {After thinking about it} If this method does not eventually make more sense to you, ask yourself by what possible [and practical] mechanism could gravity smoothly INCREASE the individual energy of each photon as it falls, and take-away [or remove] energy, as the photon climbs.

      NEXT HINT: Some billions-of-years-old photons would have been otherwise have been added-to and taken-from in every system they passed-through.

      N: Curvature, a somewhat (geo-)metric-like property, does not require radiating (or em energy) to change the level-of energy with position.  Curvature affects matter when matter travels about.

      HINT: Think of the slope of a mountain, existing without emitting continuous energy, and dependent on the shape of the mass of the mountain (changing very slowly over millions of years, but not suddenly or dynamically).  This slope-shape is to geology something-like what curvature is to spacetime.  The curvature exists, but is influenced by the presence of mass, as mass moves about.  With more mass, curvature increases, with less mass, curvature decreases.

      O: The photon is unaffected by curvature, other than a slight bending of it’s path, changing it’s direction.

      P: “Gravity” does not remove energy from, or add energy-to a photon as it travels about.  However, the energy-worth of the measurer and (his/her/their) equipment does change, rather than the photon itself.

      Q: The Black-Hole ^C-R stores-up protons and proton-neutron combo’s in an electrically neutralized manner.

      R: Eventually, this Neutral Zone ^C-R immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius, becomes primed for a catastrophic release.

      S: Release of the confined, neutralized charges occurs when some external object shifts the neutralized zone’s envelope, and allows some, up to all, of the charges to escape.

      T: These release events range from a coronal mass ejection (or CME), nova, supernova, Seyfert galaxy, active galactic nucleus (AGN), quasar, X-ray burst, and a gamma-ray burst.

      U: A great side-benefit, thrown-in for free, to this process, is the simple, natural explanation for the origins of the release-of high-energy cosmic rays (positive charges), without a reciprocal high-energy pool of excited electrons.

      V: Look for a universe-full of charge-separating events, positive charge release events, magnetic fields, polarized light, ions, affecting the shapes of the galaxies, holding the arms together, while twisting the shape into a spiral.  No dark matter is needed.

      W: No dark energy is needed to expand this universe, just a re-calibration of the true time-rates occurring at differing distances will fix everything.  Time rates ARE as they appear, and they need no correcting.

      There may be additional items, but these were the biggest ones that occurred to me on the spur of the moment, as I was thinking about the C-R theory.  The home reader is invited to suggest other possible changes, too.  There is already enough material in this blog, so come can wait till later.

      All of these areas above are significantly different in the C-R theory approach, and differ from what mainstream science believes happens, if not improving the usefulness.

      The home-reader is invited to read through the C-R theory, at your leisure, to learn more about these items, as this blog is intended more as a simple overview of them, or a listing.  I invite readers to ask questions about them, if I can answer them, I would like to do so.  Again, the changes are profound, and they all strongly affect how we perceive this universe, and it’s contents [to include ourselves, and all things we can observe, that we know-of].

      If you reject the C-R theory’s point of view, that is your right, but be aware that, if you do not at least consider these items, and honestly question how you arrived at your current understandings of each one of these, the potential exists for great mischief or confusion.

      I can only state that I now believe that the C-R theory ways are the correct ways, and that the conventional ways are mis-interpretations of reality, and represent bad choices made, way back in time, by individuals from many years ago.  If those choices were incorrect, back then, they ARE NOW the basis for almost ALL of earth’s current understanding of our universe, and what goes on inside it.

      I will agree that there is a vast, irreconcilable gulf between standard thinking, and the C-R theory point-of-view.  The real question is: Can anyone conclusively test (or prove) which one (if any) is the correct one? While I cannot definitely prove it, I will humbly suggest where to look, what to notice, and how to test-for various outcomes, if the C-R theory is correct.  (If I did not think it was correct, I would be much more hesitant to promote and publish these views.)

      If I were merely concerned that these were possibilities (but not probabilities), I would be much more reserved in expressing my views and my verdicts.

      If my views were more nebulous, and not nearly so specific, and I suggested “generalities”, and used perhaps quite often, I would also be more reserved.  As a proponent of the C-R theory views, my “neck” is on the theoretical chopping block, big-time, and I have been very specificas to the types of electrical phenomenon that I believe should be noticed.  If these things are merely an illusion, and if they are not going-on, that should be apparent over time.

      If the areas I point-out to you home-readers are fictional, and not occurring, then it should become obvious that “I am off my rocker” to put it mildly, or that I am self-deceived.  If you also detect these same types of phenomena to notice what I claim should be evidence-for (if not proof-of) the C-R theory’s concepts, then either you are fooled, too, or there IS something to my claims, and some degree of validity.

      What I offer each home reader in almost every blog, is the opportunity to either prove me wrong, agree with what I am saying, or at least, admit that there is enough “wiggle-room” or legitimate doubt raised-up against the Big Bang-type thinking, that the C-R theory at least deserves some further investigation, and more serious testing.

      I do apologize that the C-R theory is not, primarily, a mathematical understanding, with very specific numbers fitting into page-wide equations, but a theory of possibilities, pathways, and simple understandings, a supreme simplification of the overall understanding, and some new insight into an overall plan, a road-map-like guide to what I suspect is going on.

      What I try to offer is a workable plan, a humanly-understandable account, showing a logical approach to explain a wide variety of “anomalies”, but fitting together in a simple-to-understand, way.  Hopefully, these blogs can serve as a “field-guide” to recognizing and anticipating Black-Hole ^C-R behavior.

      I regret that I cannot instantly prove these claims, but that some items may take billions of years to fully play out where we can definitely say, yes or no, it does work that way.  On the other hand, I believe that there is so much evidence, almost overwhelming, that some people will be forced to consider these alternatives seriously, or find alternate, more conventional explanations, that offer a better real-world-fit, and a closer approximation to a full understanding.

      All I can say is that I think I have something very unique to offer you, and since I am not trying to sell it to you at the highest possible price, but to give it away, for free, as the product of my hobby, that I have no strong financial gain from you if I can get you “to buy-into” the C-R theory’s ideas.

      Thank you for visiting, and I hope you will consider re-visiting often enough to appreciate the differences, then make your selections as to which theory fits reality better.

Jerry Reynard April 19, 2012

April Fool’s Day blog

      I would like to welcome our 42,000^th visitor, and by the time this blog is posted, we should be midway to our 43,000^th visitor.  I appreciate your taking the time to check out the ideas at this web-site, and I hope you get some useful ideas and concepts here that cannot be obtained anywhere else.

      Even though the C-R theory has had great success lately in attracting readers from an international perspective, the front portion of this blog will be devoted to a return to my “first love”, or the humorous part of the Comedy-Recycling theory.  The later portion of the blog will be addressing whether most of world, and science too, has already been “April-Fooled” for the last 80-90-some years.

[This next part, the April-Fool’s Day part of this blog, is a science-based humor section could be skipped by international readers.  NOTE: This section below IS NOT intended for literal translation into other languages, and is based on common (American) English-language and word-usage items.]

 {International readers may resume reading after the partial line of asterisks, at the heading: A New Take on an old experiment}

The Humorous part of the Blog:

      How is the Schwarzschild radius similar to a good baseball strikeout pitch?

The first is a “throne for a curve” ball, and the second is thrown for a curveball.

      Biochem lab joke:

Q:  What is red and green and goes around and around at 100 MPH?

A:   A frog in a blender.

Q: What has 18 arms, 18 legs, catches flies and weighs a billion solar masses?

A: A supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R with its own baseball team.

      If there ever was a C-R theory fan-club, what could be it’s motto?

We really “dig” Black-Holes ^C-R!!!

      Imponderable question of the day: Will a helium-filled balloon still float in the vacuum of space?

Q:  What would the C-R theory’s critics say was the biggest difference between the C-R theory’s author, and a navy ship after a fiery chili dinner?

A:   The critics would say: “The navy ship shouldwait a day before they need to have their “head” examined.”

      The “less than intelligent man” went into a hardware store and asked the nearest sales clerk for her advice as to which measuring-tape model would be the best one for him to buy so he could measure the length of a day.  He said that she simply talked him out of the purchase, because she said he was just too “week-minded” to use any of their store’s models to measure the length of a day, and thus, his measured results would have to be divided by 7 to determine it correctly.

      [Joke multiplier: I could pun: The same man also said, he “longed” for the good old days, when math was simpler, before this new math stuff took over.]

Q: Why do freed-electrons leave their respective Black-Holes ^C-R in two near-light-speed jets?

A: Because propeller planes would simply take too long (and propellers will not fly at all in a vacuum).

A riddle:

Why did the “less than intelligent” person use miles of rope to wrap-around a small lake several times?

Because he wanted to create a tied-pool.

A Magic Question?

Q: How do you make our entire universe “just disappear”?

A: Believe in the Big Bang, and it already did it for you (before its beginning).

Q: Why is mainstream science like a cosmologist stuck inside a Black-Hole ^C-R?

A: Because both of them are still “left in the dark” about Black-Holes ^C-R.

Why is a Black-Hole’s ^C-R Neutral Zone ^C-R like a story by Edgar Allen Poe?

A: They are both excellent “tales of whoa/tales of woe”!!

Redefinition of a geography axiom: At most modern shopping malls now, the shortest distance between two points is at least twice as long as it should be.

Photographers always take a picture of my bad side.  

A colleague: Oh, and which side is your bad side?

My outside.

Good advice from the Jester: It is better to keep your mouth shut, and let people suspect you are a fool, than to open your mouth, and confirm their suspicions.

If a stopped clock is right twice a day, how does it know?

If a clock could talk, what would it tell time?

...... {Chose one}:

A: You said the same things yesterday, verbatim!!

B: That wasn’t what you told me a minute ago.

C: You may be right, but it still ticks me off.

D: I’d like a second’s opinion.

Jester: My favorite days of the workweek are the ones that are already over.

Imponderable Question (for kids to think about at your leisure):

Does rain get yelled-at by it’s mom when it goes outside to play, and gets wet?

What is the Jester’s favorite movie title?

Work is a Four Letter Word (NOTE: A relatively obscure British satire film from the ‘60's)

What is the Jester’s favorite Bob Hope movie line?

“When it comes to facing danger, brave men run in my family.”

The Jester’s favorite book joke:

“Beside a dog, a book is a man’s best friend.  Inside a dog, it’s too dark to read.” ...Groucho Marx

A college question:

What happens if you flunked the test of time?

Jester: If we are talking-about humor, the salary that I earn by laying here on the top of the home page as the C-R theory’s icon is a big joke, but, not one that’s funny to me.

A Riddle for C-R theory understanders, only:

[NOTICE: This riddle is only funny if you understand the C-R theory:]

Riddle: What has 14,000,000,000 arms and 14,000,000,000 legs, and sleeps inside a Black-Hole ^C-R every night?

A: [All-of] Humanity!!

[Jester speaking]: Riddle: Why am I (the Jester) almost-like a Black-Hole ^C-R?

A: Because we each specialize ingesting (a pun on: in jesting).

Pun: A Black-Hole ^C-R is a mass-sieve body. (Pun on: massive)

      The Jester’s Fish Story (especially for this April Fool’s Day blog)

      The Jester just told me about this fishy encounter, a tale from some time ago, on another, earlier, April Fool’s Day, also occurring in a year, after a leap year’s day.

      The Jester always takes-off every April-Fool’s Day, because it is his favorite day of the year.  He decided to have some fun, and take a vacation day, and do some early-morning fishing at the same time.  The Jester noticed that he could not find his fishing hooks, so he decided he would be lazy and just tie the worm to the fishing line.  

      Being lazier still, the Jester also decided, rather than to have to awake even earlier on his day off, just to dig-up some worms, he would simply break-off a few worm-sized tree-branch twigs now, then spray paint them in a worm-like color.  After the paint dried, the Jester then figured he could just coat the fake “worm” with some glue on that morning, so that the fish would just stick to the fake worm when they came-by to check it out, and save the Jester from needing to go buy new fish-hooks.

      Now the smarter home-reader out there would say, but hey, when the glue on the fake worm gets wet, the glue will dissolve or get waterlogged.  Well, in working for the C-R theory, the Jester is a pretty smart fellow, so he also figured this out, too, so he came equipped with a can of waterproofing spray.  He thought he would just spray the fake worm with waterproofing, after he applied the glue, so that the glue would not get waterlogged.

      When the morning to fish arose, the Jester was prepared, and had his fake worms ready, painted, dried, coated with fresh, wet glue, and properly waterproofed.  He tied the fake worms to the fishing line, threw them in, and started waiting for the fish to notice them.  He hoped the fish would come close enough, and just get stuck to the glue on the fake worms.

      Now I am no good judge of the Jester’s plan, since I am not a fisherman, and I cannot say that the plan could have ever worked properly, but here is the report, straight from the Jester, just as he told me.

      The smaller fish were not that interested, so they just swam by without giving the fake worm much notice.  After ten minutes or so, the slightly larger fish, those who had been around for at least a year or two, swam by and came in for a closer look, but they were not that interested, either.

      Within a half hour or so, the larger fish, those that had been around for many years, finally got curious, and started coming-by.  I believe they were far too wise to fall for the Jester’s tricks, but that’s when a funny thing happened.  

      The older and larger fish just started to find this extremely funny.  They just could not believe that this stupid human, (dressed in his full-color Jester’s regalia, too), had been foolish enough to think they would fall for his plan.

      The older fish had been around long enough, and they knew how the fishing “game” was supposed to be played.  Some of them had probably been caught and released several times, before.

      I suspect that the older, wiser fish could even read a little-bit of some of our human minds, just enough to know what was expected of them, and that is how they had lived so long, without getting caught, and gotten as large as they were.

      Anyway, these older fish just found this fake worm, tied on to the line, coated with worm-colored paint and wet glue, then waterproofed, just so darned funny that they could not contain themselves without giggling.  After the bigger fish all started laughing, the smaller ones finally caught-on to the joke, too, and joined-in.

      From the beginning of time, there probably have not been more than a dozen cases of fish ever laughing so hard before (or since).  None of these encounters have ever been officially recorded for history, so this blog is the very first written account I can find.

      Even though they did not lunge at the fake worm, and they were never in danger of getting caught, as the Jester had planned, the larger fish just lingered-around and started laughing so hard that this created a noticeable disturbance on the surface of the water.  All-of the swirls and the turbulence from the laughing fish stirred-up the water, almost like a bubble bath.  

      Well, the Jester noticed the gathering of these huge fish down there, and he thrust-in his fishing net right behind them.  Normally, these fish would dart away as soon as they heard the net splash, but they were all just rolling around in a giggle-fit, and half-paralyzed with unstoppable, contagious laughter. [And this danger from the net was unrecognized by these fish, who had never been so thoroughly entertained before.]

      When he lifted the net, the Jester found at least 3 huge fish gasping for their gill-fulls of water, but in our air, and all emitted that very distinctive “fish belly-laugh” sound. Now, being the consummate, professional entertainer that he was, the Jester noticed that those fish were actually laughing “convulsively-hard”, and not just gasping for oxygen, as the normal fish-catch would do.

      Needless to say, even though they were laughing mostly at his set-up, and not at a true punch-line, which is a comedian’s “adrenaline rush”, the Jester did not have the heart to eat them.  Even though they would have been a prized catch, and they were some pretty-tasty types of fish, according to the Jester, they were also one of the better audiences of hearty-laughers he had ever had.  

      A professional Jester recognizes any appreciative crowd, and takes a liking to them, {even though they could have been his dinner, instead}, and he simply could not treat them that badly, by eating them.

      So the Jester went hungry that morning, and let those fish go back into their river-homes, also sternly warning them that he would not be quite so sentimental on another day, if he ever caught them again.  Ultimately, the Jester considered releasing them a small price to pay for the unique experience so few human fishermen have ever had, of finding the oldest and largest fish responding in a laughter-fit.

      Anyone who has ever seen fish in an aquarium knows they are a very tough crowd to amuse, even to make them crack a slight smile, much less get a good guffah out of them, is unlikely.  To have seen 3 of the biggest of them in such a high state of merriment is still one of the Jester’s most prized memories.

      When I mentioned to the Jester that I was looking for some new funny stuff for my April Fool’s day blog, he said that my request just reminded him of that situation, from at least one leap-years April-Fool’s Day ago, and he volunteered this account for your home-amusement.

      Now I know that some fishermen are prone to exaggerating their stories a bit, and as a professional comedian, too, the Jester might have been tempted to go beyond all reasonable expectations to stick with the pure, unadulterated truth. He swears that this is all true (but he did have both fingers crossed, and winked one-eye a couple times), so I will let the home reader decide on his veracity.

      While I do not profess the above story is necessarily, “science”, it is an April-Fool’s Day story with an April-Fool’s Day theme, as told by the C-R theory’s personal Jester, and it was funny, to me, so I threw this story into this special blog.  Nevertheless, it is a fitting fish-tale for April Fool’s Day, (and, perhaps prone to a fisherman’s embellishment), and thus, the Jester’s account of an earlier April-Fool’s Day fishing trip made it into my blog this year.

******************* International readers, resume here:

      A NEW TAKE ON AN OLD EXPERIMENT (that anyone can do at home) {for no money}

      I mentioned an experiment in last month’s blog, but I neglected to include it, or write about it, then.  By the great coincidence that both this experiment’s premise and conclusion would not be believed or taken seriously by science, why not also include it in this April Fool’s Day blog.  I include it, not because I can fool you with it now, but because I believe science has already been April-fooled for these many years, and not just one special day at a time, although I cannot prove it.

      While this experiment is not particularly difficult to perform successfully, and it is not necessary to precisely record all of the details, it is cheap, and easy to duplicate from any accessible location, anywhere in this world.  Technically, many of us have performed this experiment; but without considering a unique observation from the C-R theory, you may have missed the most important NEW idea on it, that I will cover now.  

      HINT: Nature may have hidden an important clue, right under our very noses, that almost no-one has noticed.

      Toss a ball (or some other object that can be safely tossed) into the air, in a safe manner, where it can be caught or recorded, over and over.

      Notice that the ball will travel skyward, slow-down, stop, then drop back down.  The observant reader will claim, what is so unique or revolutionary about that? That is what I will try to tell you, now.

      From the C-R theory’s point-of-view, it is gravitational curvature at work here, and not an actual “force” of gravity.  Let me try to explain the difference in reasoning.

      From the Newtonian way, gravity is somehow generated in response to the net-sum of the masses of two (or more) objects, as an action-at-a-distance.  As it has been tested, from above earth’s surface, Newton’s theory is solidly accepted, and held in high regard.

      Later, Einstein postulated that what we thought of as gravity, was an (after)effect of mass, called curvature, as a property of spacetime, which caused an effect on nearby masses, that made gravity work.  Where the C-R theory is attempting to advance the understanding, this “effect” of gravity, is actually caused locally, and it mostly affects each mass, locally.  This “effect” is not produced (or emitted) from far-away, and then radiated-in, say, like electromagnetism.  Curvature changes [or warps] the “carrying-capacity”, or the ability of matter to hold energy, allowing matter to store more (or absorb more) energy when lifted-up, and/or to liberate energy from a local mass, if that mass was allowed to fall an additional amount.

      A very important result from this new way of thinking is that the immediate effect [acting as gravity], directly changes the internal energy-worth of the local mass, at the closest location to where the energy was either added or freed-up.

      The biggest difference in this form of “gravity” is AFTER the masses’ energy has been lowered.  At the very extremes, when mass falls into a Black-Hole ^C-R, it’s energy is lowered as far as is physically possible, and it cannot ever go any lower. {That mass is in a state where it cannot lose more energy.} This change takes place immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  This confines the minimizing effect exclusively to this Neutral Zone ^C-R region.  [Essentially, like the outermost skin-layer of the Black-Hole ^C-R.]

      Two masses already inside two Black-Holes ^C-R are already at their lowest possible state, and each cannot be lowered any further by being “eaten-again” by the other. This also keeps one Black-Hole ^C-R from attracting (and eating) another Black-Hole ^C-R, a unique prediction that can only be recognized by using the C-R theory.

      At a lesser extreme, this means that a mass stored in less-extreme conditions will ALWAYS fall to the MAXIMUM amount of curvature (if possible), but NO FURTHER. (A mass cannot continue to “fall”, back into a more-energetic region, where curvature is less.  It must either acquire more energy to be allowed back into lesser curvature region, or stay put, in the most curved portion-of spacetime.)

      Where this concept would meet the challenge would be, if a mass on earth could drop down, from the surface of the earth, into a hypothetical shaft drilled down towards earth’s center.  Whereas almost ALL standard textbooks ASSUME that Earth has a constant density throughout (for ease of calculation purposes), THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

      On earth, since density increases substantially with depth, this causes gravity to slightly increase, not to decrease, until the Core-Mantle-Boundary (or CMB) is reached. From a gravity of about 9.81 m/sec² on the surface, gravity slowly increases to a value of 10.69 m/sec² at the core mantle boundary, at approximately 2,886 km below earth’s surface.  Only at the CMB, is gravity on earth at it’s MAXIMUM value.

      Even though density increases slightly after the CMB is reached, earth’s gravity then drops off to zero* at earth’s center.

      NOTE: (*The actual earth-moon system’s center orbit oscillates around this point at earth’s center, in the moon’s direction, but never actually resides at the center.  There are also other masses, like the sun’s and the other planets, which keeps the value for curvature somewhat above zero [for the value of gravity], at earth’s center.)

Will YOU “fall” for it?

      What is different this time, about this experiment, is not the result, from here, at the surface.  It is the idea that I will ask the home reader perform this experiment with a totally new idea, or objective, in mind.  What the C-R theory asks the home reader to keep-in-mind, or to notice, while performing this experiment, is that gravitational curvature causes an object [a ball] to always fall and accelerate towards the greatest curvature, rather than, to generically fall, with decreasing acceleration, all the way down, towards the center of the earth.   

      I will not disagree that, from “above earth’s surface”, the ball’s path coincides with, and always falls and accelerates, down, towards earth’s center.  

      What is in question here is: Is that acceleration to the center ALWAYS the case, or just an “accidental” coincidence when the experiment is only performed from earth’s surface?

      While the C-R theory agrees that Newton was brilliant, and his theory of how gravity works has been enormously successful when measured from above earth, there still arises the question, was it right in ALL cases? Einstein replaced certain portions of our understanding of Newton’s gravity with his theories of special, then general relativity, and stated that curvature tells the mass how to move.

      What was never considered, back then, was this.  If one checks a reliable source, the C.R.C. Manual, (not related to the C-R theory), one will find that gravity actually INCREASES as one goes towards earth’s center, at least until we drop down to the Core Mantle Boundary (or CMB).

      NOTE: Almost all high school and college textbooks oversimplify this fact, and use, as their only example, an earth with averaged-out density overall.

      NOTE II: Earth’s density does not just increase linearly, but does so in a stair-step fashion, with increasing regions of density, from the crust, the mantle, and the outer core, then the inner core, further inside.

      Whereas most textbooks “pretend” that earth’s gravity drops off and decreases smoothly and linearly to zero at earth’s center, in reality, gravity increases slowly, below earth’s surface.

      What the C-R theory claims is: that as the gravity (or curvature) increases, that is really the ONLY reason that causes the ball to continue to fall.  Only the C-R theory claims that, if the gravity (as curvature) did not increase, the ball would be stuck at the surface, where gravity “should have been the greatest strength”-by the textbooks. [It is not so, again, because earth’s density increases substantially with depth.]

      What the C-R theory wants the home-experimenter to keep in mind, and to recite, while performing this experiment is: “When we throw the ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature [or strength], the ball loves to visit, but cannot remain, and it is always compelled to return back into GREATER curvature”.  

      The real question that the C-R theory wants the home-reader to address is: Will this same situation, faced “down there” also be the case, once the ball finally arrives at the place of maximum curvature, (at the CMB)? What to consider is: What do the results of your experiment suggest? How many times have you performed this experiment, and how many times has the ball always “fallen” back into greater curvature?

      If you are totally honest with yourself, this experiment demonstrates (but does not prove, by itself), that curvature causes a ball to fall to the greatest curvature, every time this experiment is performed.

      What the C-R theory is suggesting is that nature has already given us humans, the answer, in plain sight, for anyone to test-out.  If you do not believe me, that is OK, what I ask is will you believe the results from your experiment? Even if you are not necessarily “won-over” right away, what I am attempting to show YOU is that there IS, BECAUSE OF YOUR EXPERIMENT, a valid scientific reason to question the “standard answer”, using ONLY the results of this experiment.

      NOTE: At only the CMB, curvature THERE is maximum.  If you were to throw the ball UP, towards the surface of the earth, you would be throwing the ball back into a lesser curvature.  HOWEVER, that situation ALSO occurs now if you were to throw the ball down, towards the center of the earth.  In that situation, again, since the curvature ALSO decreases going towards the center, WILL the ball AGAIN return back to the maximum curvature? This is the dilemma!!!

      NOTE: “Humanity has NEVER tested the situation of tossing a ball into a lesser gravitational curvature from BELOW earth’s surface.” That I know of, only the C-R theory has “mentally tested” this idea using a new understanding of “gravity’s cause”, straight from nature, by applying previous results directly from this simple experiment. As far as I know, only the C-R theory predicts that this result will occur in this particular situation.

      If you still stick to the strict, Newtonian view, I would humbly ask the home reader to re-perform this experiment over and over, but this time, with a more open mind.

      If you cannot accept it, for now, that is expected.  If you believe you already KNOW the answer, without having ever actually tested the result, “down there”, then you have missed the entire point of this exercise.

      NOTE: Both of the theories would rule-out that the ball returns back to the earth’s surface on it’s own accord.

      What the C-R theory is attempting to do is to show the observant reader, for the first-time, an experimental reason to question the “standard wisdom”.

      Another area where the entire world might have been fooled is The Big Bang.  The C-R theory claims that we live inside a closed universe, which is exactly filled, sealed-off, perfectly stable, and is not expanding.  I will not fully go into all those areas, but to mention that they are covered in either of the C-R theories.  

      Briefly, I will mention that the C-R theory claims that the redshifts found in this universe, “way out there”, are almost all gravitationally caused.  Just last year, scientists placed an atomic clock about 1 foot (or 33 cm) higher than a second atomic clock, which had been synchronized.  The clock that was slightly-lifted ran faster, by an incredibly small amount of time, which science can now accurately measure.

      What the C-R theory claims is that something similar, but far more drastic, takes place inside this closed universe.  Not only does time slow down to almost a crawl in all directions, but there is one (and only one region), called “The Great Attractor”, where time runs faster than here on earth (as is evidenced by it’s limited blueshift).

      The simplest possible explanation for both readings, simultaneously, of redshift at a distance, everywhere around, and blueshift in only one region, is that both are caused by differing levels of curvature (acting as gravity). (See the C-R theory section __ for a fuller explanation, and illustrated diagrams.)

DOES the 2.7K temperature background radiation “really prove” the Big Bang?

      The C-R theory also claims that the 2.7 K radiation is not proof of a big bang, anymore than when I pull an ice-cube out of my refrigerator “proves” that a blast-furnace exists.  The 2.7K is not a leftover, but simply the cooled-down collective radiation, time-slowed-down, from the outermost portions of our universe.  

      All one needs to do is wait a billion years, and see that there is no additional cooling-down of the 2.7K with time.  A second method is to travel to other far-away locations, elsewhere, inside this universe, and measure “there”, to see if the “2.7 K background” there has some other value “there”, (while we on earth still measure it as 2.7K).

      While neither of the above two methods are likely to yield results quickly enough to settle the argument soon, yet other methods might be found where we can tell, from here on earth, what those readings would be “there”, somewhere else.  What I am trying to suggest is that science “kind-of rolled-over and ignored the real evidence” against the standard hypothesis, and kind-of railroaded the conclusions into a group-consensus, where dissent is not tolerated, much less cherished.

      The standard view is that the case is so proven, via. self-fulfilling logic, none but a “fool” would disagree with it.  What has been missed is: The whole logic is a flimsy “house of cards”, where any kink in the evidence, anywhere, will collapse the whole structure in on itself.

EXPANDING and ACCELERATING, or STATIC.

      The last major area where the whole scientific world has probably been fooled is when they conclude that the expansion of this universe is accelerating, and not slowing-down.  Part of the problem is that earth’s scientists have corrected their observed data BEFORE they draw their conclusions from it, BASED-ON the expectations that, time-wise, everywhere else in this universe, time runs at the EXACT-SAME rate as right here on earth.  The small problem is: The visual evidence indicates otherwise.

      I have argued elsewhere in the C-R theory as to why this simple acceptance of: “Everywhere else is IDENTICAL to earth conditions, time-wise, courtesy of the theory of relativity.”, is AN UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION.

      I have enjoyed quoting the Chico Marx line: “Who you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?”, to ridicule science for first throwing away the OBSERVED visual evidence that far-off regions of our universe are NOT LIKE Earth at all, but are slowed-down considerably.  AFTER CORRECTING the OBSERVED DATA, [because they believed the premise from the theory of relativity, rather than accepting THEIR own OBSERVED DATA, or their actual results], science then wonders why this universe does not make proper sense to them.

      DOES anyone else out there have a problem with the scenario described above? Is it FAIR {or GOOD science?} to correct the OBSERVED and MEASURED data FIRST, THEN, afterward, derive your conclusions from that pre-corrected data, and be baffled with the results?

      Is it any wonder that the conclusions do not make good sense?

WHAT ABOUT DARK MATTER?

      I have blogged about both dark matter and dark energy in recent blogs, so I will not

cover those too extensively here, but I would like to briefly mention those topics for new visitors.  The C-R theory maintains that dark matter, which is supposed to be the missing ingredient that causes galaxies to “hold-together”, might be easily explained by the much simpler notion that electricity and magnetic fields are much more prevalent in galaxies than standard science suspects.  Instead of requiring 90% of the mass of the galaxy to be dark matter, we merely need to look-for evidence of electromagnetic activity occurring within galaxies.  After all, science KNOWS about magnetism, and how it affects matter.

      Rather than invoking a “mysterious” dark matter, why not consider the more reasonable and probable cause of electromagnetic fields, shaping, driving, and holding-together the galaxies, and driving the spiral arms to twist.

      If we were to start searching close-to-home, in our own solar system, can we find evidence of enormous quantities of stray electrical charges, huge electrical fields, large magnetic fields, or electrical activity? Just about everywhere we look, evidence is stuffed into nooks and crannies, in existing reports, if we just read about them.

      Without belaboring the point, the huge current flowing between Jupiter and Io, of up to 5 million amps at a cyclic peak, is one such occurrence.  Auroral activity on every planet, and many moons suggests more stray electrical charges.  Lightning and thunderstorms are such prominent features of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, Venus, and some moons, that electrical activities there cannot be denied.

      If one checks out our sun’s corona, and the areas around sunspots, the level of magnetic fields and intense energies of solar flares, solar prominences, and coronal mass ejections, evidence something magnetic exists there is abundant here too.

      Additionally, the biggest anomaly virtually IGNORED by science is the double-negative ionization of ALL of the hydrogen atoms in our sun’s photosphere.  Virtually EVERY hydrogen atom there HAS TWO ELECTRONS, despite it’s over 6,000° C, or almost 10,000°F temperature, suggests the biggest clue possible has been completely ignored.

      Given that the solar wind accelerates after it leaves the sun’s vicinity seems to suggest some anomalous electrical charge behavior, too.

      If we search for evidence of electromagnetic activity outside our solar system, huge radio wave emissions, X-rays, gamma rays, polarized light, and high energy cosmic rays might almost be a walking billboard, advertising electrical activity, but you would never know it reading the standard accounts.

      After that we have enormous clouds of ionized radicals (ions as part of chemical structures with either positive or negative ions), 7 million degree warm lobes above and below our galaxies central massive Black-Hole ^C-R, stretching for 25,000 light years each way, containing something like 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy.

      I have read elsewhere that the outer 1/5 of this universe’s hydrogen is ALL ionized, which might also give one strong clues as to the amount of electrical activity happening way-out-there.

      In short, the home reader is invited to search for themselves to find similar reports that mention the presence of any type of electromagnetic activity, and see if I am simply making it up, or if something indeed is going on “out there”.

Summing it all up:

      There are times where I might apologize for using humor to try to get my points across, in the Comedy-Recycling theory, because I thought that might get more people to read it (voluntarily) and get them to enjoy it, if I did too.  

      I have since also authored the Completely Recycling theory, for the benefit of our international readers, with much of the original humor eliminated.  It has succeeded in being downloaded by more people, more often, from around the world, than is the original Comedy-Recycling theory.

      I knew the “experts” were too set in their ways, and the scope of my ideas was too radical for the current generation to fully accept.  I have tried to provide these ideas, free of charge, to anyone who will take the time to look at them.  I will try to seriously suggest these alternatives to the current champ, “The Big Bang” theory, and show why these answers are better, simpler, more straightforward, and less contrived.

      There are other areas, like using Black-Holes ^C-R to recycle matter and energy, where the ideas are profound, simple, and easily testable, to a remarkable degree.  I invite every new reader to ask if these ideas are not easier for you to understand, and make more sense, than the competition.

      To those critics who say that the Comedy-Recycling theory is one of the worst named theories in all of science, that is your right to think-so.  I claim that overall, there are so many new ideas in here, that the theory would have been just-as-rejected anyway, in virtually any standard forum, even if it had been conventionally named.

      While I was first writing this paragraph, the home-page visitor count was nearing our 42,000^th visitor. (P.S., it did reach that number a while ago.) Downloading bandwidth is up considerably, compared to earlier years.  Recently, we have set new records for weekly incoming visitor numbers.  We also do well with returning visitors, re-visiting bookmarked pages, and reading more topics that this theory has to offer.

      I do apologize for my unorthodox methods, but these results speak for themselves. “Someone” is looking at this theory, and some are returning multiple times.  These ideas are not expressed elsewhere.  I offer them for your consideration, and to get you to try to think in new patterns.  I am trying to point-out commonalities in observations that science has mostly missed, or worse-yet, deliberately ignored.

      Was science looking for something “too complicated” {formula-wise}, so that they ignored some simpler alternatives? I am suggesting that the reader look at known items in a new way, and learn to recognize new patterns, if indeed they are there.  Is our universe far more dynamic, because of the electrical, magnetic, polarized, and basic, charge-separating activity, than anyone-else in mainstream science suspects?

      If I play the Fool, and I am wrong, then I will be another in a long line of genuinely convinced, but still sincerely wrong individuals.  If I play the Fool, by conventional wisdom, but I end-up being right in any of these new areas (or all of them), then that IS the type of Fool I would rather be this April.

      If the scientific world has indeed been April-Fooled by nature in at least 3 key areas, as the C-R theory suspects, for all these many years, I would rather that someone else had the privilege to point-it-out to them.  Since I could find no-one else who also thought-so, the lot fell to me.  If any of the C-R theory’s regular readers become convinced-enough, I would appreciate their extra help in pointing-out the possible errors to the rest of the world.  By gently mentioning all of these areas to explore, I hope to assist others to travel the same pathways, and re-consider what they have been taught.

      It is always possible that there are many more, simple, new ideas hidden within the C-R theories, that I have not-yet realized.  I invite all home-readers to see if they can discover obvious items (to you, at home), that I have not yet discovered.

      Look at the newest scientific papers and reports, and look for those type-of patterns that only the C-R theory pathways could appreciate.  If you find more, independent of my suggesting where to look, post your results somewhere, and look for many more items.

      If you do happen to find the C-R theory ideas personally useful, please let others know, too.  If you can think of easier or quicker ways to test any of the main ideas, let that be known, too.  If you find no evidence supporting the C-R theory ideas, keep looking for my newest blogs, and I will try to keep you informed with things I uncover for likely areas to notice relevant phenomenon.

      Whatever topic(s) I chose for the next blog, I will try to return back to the more serious conventional subjects, and also cover more of my older ideas with even newer insights from these last few years, rather than by adding more humor.

      One of my highest goals is to be recognized by some credible mainstream source(es) and having some of the C-R theory ideas taken seriously, and discussed and considered as such.  I would also like to find those web-sites where the C-R theory ideas have been discussed, but the search engines rank too low to be listed in a common web-search.

      Thank you again for visiting, and I look forward to my next opportunity to create these blog sessions, where I can further address some of the possible merits from the C-R theory ideas.  Sincere questions and concerns can be addressed using the Contact the Author block on the homepage at the top.

Jerry A. Reynard To be posted on or just before April 1, 2012

      Welcome to the 41,000th visitor.  Just the other day, the web-site had its 41,000th visitor to the home page, and we’ve been getting as many as 800 visitors in an extraordinary week, and around 600 visitors a week, lately, to all portions of the site.

      I will try to let the native humorist in me loose for an upcoming April Fool’s Day version of the blog.  I have held-off from the comedy part of the Comedy-Recycling theory for quite a while, and I would like to let loose the punster at least once a year, if possible.  It is also the Jester’s favorite day of the year (my icon for the humorous part of the C-R theory).

      I would like to address one of my favorite topics, and one often misinterpreted by some of the home readers.  I would like to re-visit many of the basics, and try to re-describe them to new visitors.

      I would like to point out that, only the C-R theory is bold enough, and self-convinced enough to predict many new, very specific items about the operation of a Black-Hole ^C-R, the non-generic black hole specifically predicted by the C-R theory.  Having noticed this trend now for over 30 years, and finding as much “known-about” information publicly available as I now know exists, I have a very high level of confidence in the path the C-R theory has taken.  Unfortunately, mainstream science is still plodding-away, towards the twin darknesses, (both dark energy AND dark matter), and looking to those FICTIONAL ideas for their answers.

      Briefly, I would advise new home-readers that science simply forgot to try to rule-out electromagnetic energy, consisting of electrical current flows, and intense magnetic fields, before they hopped-aboard the “dark-matter bandwagon”. {Previous blogs did already cover this point-of-view.} Where I hope to go with this current blog is to flesh-out my ideas about the system inside our universe, and discuss the role that Black-Holes ^C-R have in this universe, into the mix.

      Again, the term Black-Holes ^C-R refers to ONLY C-R theory obeying [ brand-name, or trademarked ^tm-like unique items, different enough to be “protected” or identified as special] black holes.  I also covered this special term in my last blog, but mention it again, before I start-in to this month’s topic.

      NEW, and UNIQUE ideas from the C-R theory:

      The Black-Hole ^C-R is so special, in that it sets-up itself for “success” in recovery of matter that has been consumed, rather than failure, as it’s [theoretical, generic] competitors, black holes that collapse fully into a singularity at their center.  Mainstream science maintains that: What enters into a generic black hole, stays inside a generic black hole.

      The C-R theory EXPECTS that, if a true singularity actually existed inside a black hole, at the center, the gravity felt outside that black hole should decrease substantially as the mass inside increased!! The reason to suspect so is that there would exist a wide “forbidden-zone-like” gap between the central-singularity, and the outside real-world.  As this zone got wider, and that gap increased, whatever gravitons (proposed, or theoretical carriers of the gravitational force) emerged across that gap should diminish, as the coupling-out efficiency of the graviton count would decrease, falling-off with increasing distance-out (measured from the center), and the graviton-receiving mass.

      NOTE: The C-R theory states that this decrease in efficiency DOES NOT HAPPEN, but only because a totally different, and quite indirect mechanism is used to produce gravity. (That idea is covered elsewhere in the C-R theory.)

       Mainstream science also ASSUMES that, as 3 of the 4 known forces have all been reconciled into one (partially-complete?) theory, that gravity will also be reconcilable with those forces, and that ALL 4 forces, (of 4) will behave EXACTLY the same way, after coming out from the inside of a generic black hole.

      Where the C-R theory differs: the C-R theory proposes that gravity-alone is produced indirectly, and is, technically, an after-effect, rather than a true “force”, on the same, equal footing with electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak (or electro-weak) force.  There is a very simple experiment any home-reader can perform in their own home (or anywhere else) which may actually show this idea in action.  It is not the only reason for the C-R theory’s confidence, but is part of the data to choose.

      I will not attempt to prove the concept here, but simply review it, to make the claims, and to suggest some questions the home reader may wish to ponder or discuss further.

       The original concept, the one that started the C-R theory idea is this: Why is gravity felt outside of a Black-Hole ^C-R? [NOTE: This was before the need for the term Black-Hole ^C-R was known, but I am NOW trying to show, (here), that there is STILL a need the this new concept.]

      If you have never been troubled by this question, I would suggest: You should be!!! If heat and light cannot make it out from a Black-Hole ^C-R, should not gravity also be “trapped inside”? If gravitons can only travel at the speed-of-light, why to they seem-to emanate-out undisturbed, or undiminished in strength?

      Unless the reader retorts back, but what if gravitons can travel “faster-than-the-speed-of-light”?, there is this provision.  If the speed of gravitons is anything less than infinite, there should come some speed limit where they still would become trapped inside, if they only emerged from an origin, out-of a singularity at the center.  If the speed of gravity was infinite, then the theory of relativity must be wrong in at least that one aspect.

      I will admit that the C-R theory’s initial ideas focused-on eliminating the singularity, totally.  In that aspect, the C-R theory is still unapologetic: There is NO singularity now, and there never has been one.

      Since I have discussed it elsewhere, I will merely mention again that, part of the rejection of the singularity-idea, was the recycling of the same-type of idea where science, just-after 1900, overcame the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, by showing that the electron was forced to limit it’s radiation-away of energy to discreet steps, or quanta. Otherwise, classical mechanics invoked Maxwell’s equations to claim that the electron, as a moving electrical charge, should have been expected to continually radiate-away it’s energy.  This was because a moving electrical charge was expected to continually radiate away energy.  Every orbiting electron should-have dropped ALL-of it’s energy, and collapsed into the proton, within 1/5 of a second.  This should have limited matter to “only neutrons” everywhere.

      Fortunately for our world at large, this Ultraviolet Catastrophe never happened. Quantum mechanics saved matter in this universe from a “predicted” total collapse into a neutron: very similar to the expected collapse into a singularity that science expects already occurs NOW, in every case, inside, at the center of every [conventional] black hole.

      If one understands gravitational curvature, from the C-R theory, it “influences” matter, to warp, or curve it into a lowered-energy configuration.  It is this action that effectively changes matter “almost*” everywhere in this universe.  (*At the exact center of the universe, there is no net influence from curvature, because any influence is zero-summed, or canceled-out**. {**If there is additional matter, outside of this universe, some level of additional curvature is still possible at the center of our universe.  NOTE: This exception was not in my original reasoning, and took me 15-20 years to realize the oversimplification of my original thoughts.  I consider this an oversight error, and not an invalidation of the original idea.  I wanted to generalize my concepts, and be more inclusive of a wider range of possibilities.} This topic of “extra-universal” matter may deserve a future blog of it’s own, to elaborate on it.)

      Now, I will delve into my intended blog subject, the overall concept of the use (and role) of the Black-Hole ^C-R in this universe.

      Part of the C-R theory ideas is that the Black-Hole ^C-R accomplishes, for this universe, something like what the scavenger does for the African savannah.  It helps dispose-of expended, worn-out matter, and loose, stray, light.  The Black-Hole ^C-R then concentrates them in such a condition that they cannot “radiate-away” their energy, but are forced into a condition {the Neutral Zone ^C-R} where they must concentrate-back into an energetic mix, with explosive potential not accounted for by conventional science.

      The simple, elegant part of this is: The Black-Hole ^C-R does so by exploiting it’s very nature, using the most important attribute (total, saturated gravity) that ONLY it possesses.  In a creatively simple manner, the Black-Hole ^C-R takes protons, neutrons, and electrons, picks-over them BY MASS, always rejecting almost all electrons, and consumes the protons and neutrons.

      The real surprise here is what happens next.  NOTE: This is something science does not suspect, AND DOES NOT ACCEPT. (but, it happens anyway) Immediately inside the Black-Hole ^C-R, there is a volume of spacetime where the most extreme conditions matter can encounter occur).  What the C-R theory proposes is that, in this Neutral Zone ^C-R, every possible interaction, or real-time event, is simply turned-off.

      To illustrate, if I tied-up your hands tightly behind your back, then commanded you to applaud wildly, you would be prevented from doing so by your “storage conditions”. Well, what if matter (and energy too) also face such an extreme of storage-inconvenience.  Because the escape velocity is also “above the speed-of-light” ALL electromagnetic interactions are turned-off, prevented, invalidated, made impossible.

      What is really great about this is, it is the MOST SIMPLE answer possible, and the easiest to understand.  We all can understand that if I put you in a condition where you are physically unable to do some action, you are prevented from doing what you would normally do, when you were asked.

      What is needed is: The most extreme gravitational influence possible, a place of “escape-proof” confinement, and matter and energy involuntarily trapped.  Then, to compliment that, we have matter completely ionized, but held in a suspended state of confinement.

      Notice that only the Black-Hole ^C-R stores up, in a highly-concentrated form the only known force that CAN overcome, or overwhelm gravity, if and when it is allowed to become active again.  This gives the C-R theory-obeying Black-Holes ^C-R a competitive advantage in practical-usefulness, and allows nature to recycle valuable contents in spectacularly cataclysmic events, like novas, supernovas, hypernovas, Seyfert galaxies, Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN’s), quasars, and gamma ray bursts (GRB’s).

      There is a free web site where I have found a chart from a 3,000 year old supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud, that displays the still-high level of multi-positive levels of ionizations.  If this supernova remnant has been expanding and cooling for at least 3,000 years, one would not expect this level of ionization still going strong. There may be many more like it, but this is one I have found that is readily accessible, for free.

      NOTE: The authors of the article might object to my using it to claim some support for the C-R theory, but the article is publicly available, and is in a form acceptable to mainstream science.  I use it to bring attention to some of the C-R theory’s claims, that information is supportive, or at least available to look-at.  At least 31 ionizations greater than +5 are featured in the chart on the third page of this article.

      My point is that there is considerable evidence for a large amount of magnetic fields and electrical currents, in almost every direction we look.  If these items were not there, I would be much more sheepish in pushing the C-R theory’s claims.

      This offers an opportunity to the home reader, to look for additional evidence, not “spoon-fed to you, by me”, but that you can find independently.  If you find nothing else, be suspicious of my examples; but if you find many articles with similar findings, it is probably not due to my fictional writing, but is an indication of something BIG that science has missed.

      What I am trying to do is to suggest a logical pathway, suggest a likely outcome, show you where one might look to find items in the available public literature, and then let you judge if my hypothesis is reasonable.

      I would also like to assert that ONLY the C-R theory has been publicly BOLD enough to claim a logical scenario for a practical, ecological use for Black-Holes ^C-R, and to share it with the general public.  I remember reading a short story by Isaac Asimov, called The Last Question, where a robot considered: Is there any way to reverse entropy? I never suspected that it might occur to me to be the first to suggest a simple and practical way to do so, using basic principles, and the given properties of our special Black-Holes ^C-R (and not just any generic black holes).

      While I do not expect anyone to fully accept this new idea at first reading, I at least want to get the idea discussed, offered as a possibility, and to show what to expect, where to look, what phenomena to notice, and WHY it makes sense, from nature’s point-of-view.  I also maintain that this did not happen by randomly-evolved accident, but was part of an ingenious master plan, pre-designed and set-up well ahead-of-time, by an intelligent Creator.  While I cannot prove that, I consider this possibility just impressive-enough to freely share it with anyone who will listen.

      I offer to home readers the opportunity to investigate some of this for themselves, and see if you can find more evidence for, or ANY evidence against this notion.  If that idea is wrong, I certainly want to know that too, so I can look elsewhere.  If I had not found seemingly at least 100 randomly detected items over the last 30 years, each one contributing more support for the general idea, I probably would have posted this idea anonymously, if at all.

      I am not trying so much to take credit for the idea, but merely to present it as a reasonable hypothesis.  I believe I have been allowed to discover (or uncover) the idea, as much because I would present it publicly, rather than the circumstance where I labored for a full- lifetime of careful and diligent study and then came to this conclusion. I had been considering just such a question, about the universe and the potential role of (generic) black holes beforehand (in late 1978).  It may have been more by luck, happenstance, or serendipity, or even due to a simple but sincere request for understanding (again, in late 1978), rather than my genius, my abilities, or my contributions, that sprung-open the trap door to understanding, when these ideas spilled-out into a plausible package, and my “AHA-light” turned-on.  I simply understood the general process, involving Black-Holes ^C-R, as a complete package, and everything just fit-into place.

      My ideas have been smoothed-out and filled-in, and polished-up over the last 30-some years, as I witnessed the findings from space.  I believe I understand the process even better now, and I have years of phenomena to support my suspicions.  If the items that seem-to support the C-R theory hypothesis were not there, I never would have published these ideas to the web, with my name attached.

      I consider myself very fortunate to have the C-R theory’s guidance, showing me ever increasing support for “these crazy thoughts”.  My goal with these blogs is now to see if I can impart to others a similar sense of purpose, a reasonableness to what is seen, and a guide to how to think about the universe at hand.

      If you do not start to sense an overall pattern, a consistency of outcome, a repetitive nature to high currents, magnetic fields, excess electrons, positive ionization-driven energy-release events, polarized light patterns, warm gas flows, and plasma-driven phenomena, just read the weekly magazines and the monthly periodicals, the PBS and Discovery (or Science) Channel shows, and you should sense something.  If mainstream science understood what was going on, or anticipated events like these, they are strangely silent about it.

      If my descriptions of phenomena do not excite you, and suggest to you to seriously consider the C-R theory’s findings, I hope you will keep these things I mention in mind. If you can find a better (or simpler, or more-logical) explanation for them, please let me know, too.

      If the C-R theory ideas do not seem too radical and outlandish to you initially, they should.  If I can just get you to look for these type-of items, to apply a C-R theory based logic to what is seen, and get you to appreciate the usefulness, I will understand if you are not convinced, and reject these ideas.  I need individuals to think along these NEW lines of reasoning, especially the younger generation, who have not yet made-up their mind against the C-R theory pathways, before they consider other competing ideas.

      If readers have questions, comments, or concerns, please use the contact the author form at the top of the home-page to reach me.

      I will try to prepare more blogs, re-addressing many-of the most basic C-R theory ideas, and attempting once again to show readers the overall simplicity of these ideas. I would also invoke Occams’ razor, or the principle that the simplest overall mechanism is most likely to be correct.  If you can find a simpler, more complete idea-package anywhere else, go with it.  If not, please try to use the C-R theory.

      If you still disagree with me, that is your right.  If my arguments do not convince you now, I trust that they will continue to resonate with you favorably, over time.  If it takes 5 or 10 years to win you over, or even longer, that is still progress.  If your arguments against it are sound-enough, and you can convince me that I am wrong, I will start looking elsewhere, too.

      I thank you for dropping-by and visiting.  If I can help your thinking, or suggest new items that never occurred to you before, that is part of my goal.  If you can switch-over your thinking to a more pro-C-R-theory viewpoint, I will accept that as progress.  If these ideas are wrong, the available data should give many clues to us all, that the C-R pathways are not occurring.

      That I know-of, no other theory claims anything like a C-R theory pathway, although some sites do use similar items for some of their agenda.  I am still open to possible better explanations of some items by other’s reasonings.  If I find better explanations, which convince me of their usefulness or correctness, I will try to share those, too.

      Please feel free to recommend this site to others, if you find it useful to you.  If you are not convinced, but still enjoy some of my arguments, I appreciate your consideration.  If you think I am completely wrong, but wish to use the C-R theory to illustrate that line of reasoning to others, I will accept that too.

      When I posed my original questions about black holes, I would not have accepted any of these ideas at the start.  I state that so that I can be empathetic with those who cannot, for now, accept this new reasoning.  I know where you are coming-from (at least, in part).  It took me many years to come-around to a new way of thinking about Black-Holes ^C-R, and refine these ideas.

      It is still possible that there are lines of reasoning that I have not considered, or objections that I cannot overcome, or that something new will prove some-of these ideas dead wrong.  That I am aware-of, there are none I have deliberately hidden, swept-under-the-rug, or covered-up.  It is always possible that any home-reader will find a truly fatal flaw that I cannot brush-off.  If one exists, I may even find it myself, when I think of new ways to explain my ideas to you.

      If you can take away anything new and positive (for you) from this theory, that is also part of my goal.  My theories are my “hobbies”, and I do everything I do for them because it is still “fun” for me, and not drudgery.  I have gotten enormous satisfaction from the C-R ideas, in helping me to personally understand what I think I see.  If they assist you too, or provide some satisfaction level to you, too, that is also intended.

      If I cannot change your mind, and you are totally opposed to these ideas, and you are sincere in your beliefs, I can respect that, too.  I knew before posting these ideas that they were too radical, too different, and there were too many needed changes to be an “easy-sell”.  Even if this theory is 100% correct in all of it’s ideas, it could take 50-500 more years before science fully catches-up.  I am willing to pay that price, and be thought-of as a fool by some, if that is what it takes to present these views.

      Although I can suggest where to test these ideas, and where to look, we (humanity) cannot just go “there” and test these ideas “there”.  Part of putting these ideas on-line is the possibility that some creative reader will instantly grasp some concept that can immediately be tested, in a totally new way.  Possibly, future space missions can design experiments to more directly test some of the C-R theory’s new ideas.

      As with all science, these ideas ARE right, or, they ARE wrong (or combinations of each).  If they fail the test of time, that is often the fate of most new theories.  If I can shed light on issues that should be considered, then this will have been useful.

      There is too much NEW information here, on this web-site, to digest in one sitting. Expect to need to re-visit this site multiple times to take advantage of the new concepts unique to the C-R theory.

      If I were trying to sell you this information for a high price, I would be very suspicious.  As this is my hobby, I am overjoyed to share these ideas freely, without charge.  Critics might say, it is only worth what you pay for it.  I give these ideas freely to anyone who will consider them.  If they provide you with anywhere near the joy and fulfillment they have given me, then, please pass them on to others too.

      If you do not find these ideas and discussions useful, I hope you will find what you are looking-for elsewhere.  I would also agree, science is not supposed to work this way, but the C-R theory is too nice, and seems to fit too well, to simply throw it back and try again.

Jerry A. Reynard February 29, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For 2012:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      Thank you for visiting, and stopping by.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry Reynard Feb. 6^th, 2012

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