In my last blog, I stated that I would like to review some of the evidence that is supported by the C-R theory. (Not the other way around)

One of the most compelling areas, where the C-R theory has a clear advantage over any conventional theory, is in the double negative ionization of our sun's photosphere. It is kind-of a fancy way of saying that, when our sun heats-up hydrogen to 6000° C, or almost 10,000° F, instead of shedding all it's electrons, as most (reasonable) heated gasses do here on earth, every hydrogen atom there PICKS-UP an additional electron, as well as holding-on to the one electron it normally carries around at earth’s room temperature

Of course, this doesn’t make any sense at all, unless there is a READY SOURCE of extra electrons, which standard theories don’t want, don’t predict, don’t expect, don’t require, and can’t understand. Only the C-R theory wanted there to be excess electrons there in the vicinity of the sun, if our sun was really powered by a small Black-Hole ^C-R, and not primarily by thermonuclear fusion. The C-R theory could have lived with no extra electrons found, and would have concluded that no Black-Hole ^C-R was present there.

It was some 25 years after the original C-R theory came into being that this author found out that science already KNEW about these excess electrons, but did it’s level best to cover-over the fact, sweep it under the proverbial rug, or ignore it and hope it went away. I know of no other theory which would CELEBRATE the discovery of excess electrons.

I found at least one web-site for the Electric Universe idea, that references at least 4 known stars that have changed their characteristics on the H-R (Hertzsprung-Russell) diagram notably over relatively short periods (a human lifetime), not in the millions of years those stars should take if the thermonuclear-fusion route was followed to the letter of the law.

At least one star has changed virtually through every phase of the diagram, including color-class changes and orders of magnitude changes, since the end of the 1800’s until the present day. This should not be possible, at all, if the standard energy-generating process takes place inside stars. Yet it does.

By standard theory, this universe should be mostly electrically neutral, and pretty uninteresting. However, in every direction we look, we see evidence of polarized light, indicating massive electrical fields, or huge magnetic fields. Standard theory does not support that evidence, and does not agree with it. The C-R theory says, “YES” I can easily live with that.

The C-R theory may be the ONLY theory on the internet that has a simple, easy to understand idea of what “the Great Attractor” is. If there is a preferred reference frame superimposed over this universe (by the matter confined inside), then it is easy to understand that we are not at the center, and we run slower than objects there. Conventional theory needs yet another weird anomaly to explain what it is, and there is no overall understanding of what the Great Attractor represents in the scheme of things.

While the Big Bang thinks it has an idea of what it sees in this universe, we are still left with an unsatisfying 5 major anomalies needed in context to make sense of the Big Bang. Even with all that, there is no source of the initial start, no source for the continuing expansion, much less the expanding expansion. There is no real cause for hyperinflation, just a need for it to occur to explain some of the conditions observed in this universe. (Why every direction is as similar to all others, and why the overall background radiation in this universe is as smooth as it is, despite the lumpiness and clumpiness we see.)

According to a 2005 article in Scientific American, the outer 1/5 of our universe consists mostly of ionized hydrogen. Certainly, the processes going on by conventional theories do not support this ionization. If the C-R theory is true, however, our universe could easily be filled with large quantities of ionized hydrogen, being continually replenished over time, so that our universe ALWAYS looks approximately like it does right now. The same processes are always going on, and will always go on, and always have gone on. The matter that is ionizing right now may be different, but some always will do so, and the processes are continuing.

In the standard Big Bang scenario, our universe was almost pure energy until approximately 300,000 years after the start, and then everything expanded and cooled-off sufficiently for the universe to de-ionize. Some later not-yet-understood process later re-ionized the hydrogen we see today, but that is a “temporary” situation for maybe a few billion more years at best. Eventually, the entire universe is supposed to expand beyond current recovery, and the universe will cool-off, fade-out, and die with more of a light whimper sometime in the far future.

The C-R theory is not deterred by the 2.7 K radiation coming evenly from all directions. The C-R theory claims that it is not the faded initial burst from the Big Bang, but is more similar to an averaged-out roll of distant thunder, but coming from all directions in a continually refreshed manner. The topic was covered in an earlier blog, so I would just briefly mention it here.

The level of electrical activity found with enormous currents also supports the C-R theory, and the C-R theory supports those processes to create that activity. Earth’s own aurora’s have been measured with currents over 1,000,000 AMPS of current (with each ampere representing 6.02 10²³ electrons per second). Jupiter’s moon Io has had a flux-tube with at least 5,000,000 amps of current measured between Io and Jupiter. Certainly, standard theory is at a total loss to try to explain the origin of that level of electrical currents, especially on a continuing basis, and right in our own solar system.

Some polarized light measurements in distant regions of space have been computed to suggest a current something like 10¹⁹

In the last blog, I briefly challenged the notion of the expansion of the universe, one of the key ideas that the Big Bang is derived from.  A newer theory, the Big Bounce, does away with the singularity by allowing an older universe to collapse first, nearly into a singularity, then re-emerge as the universe we know-of as the one caused by the Big Bang, hyperinflation-phase and all. (Thereby, it keeps the other 4 anomalies from the Big Bang intact.)

When Penzias and Wilson found the 2.7 K background microwave in the early 1960's, cosmologists rejoiced that they had finally found some evidence for the "start" of the universe.  For such an extravagant claim, common science accepted it with barely a whimper.

With the C-R theory's claim that this universe is NOT expanding, but fixed in size, the 2.7 K looms large in many people's minds as something which deserves some comments.  I would be happy to relay that the C-R theory is not at all troubled by the 2.7 K microwave radiation-energy, coming evenly from all directions.  The C-R theory considers this as an ongoing process, similar to the roar one hears from a near-by waterfall.  Of course, this microwave "roar" is not nearby, and has no preferred direction.  Within a few millionths of a degree, it is uniform in all directions.

The C-R theory considers this 2.7 K as the "averaged-out" and expanded remnants of ALL of the novae, supernovae, quasars, gamma-ray bursts (GRB's) and the like.  When mentioning the expanded-out part, it is important to note that this universe is still closed-off, and fixed in size, energy content, and overall density.  The expansion occurs more horizontally than outward.  This merely averages-out and smooths-out the farthest known and detected matter, mostly IONIZED hydrogen.  (A Scientific American article in the 2005 year claimed that the outer 1/5 of our universe consisted of mostly ionized hydrogen.  Of course, they believed that the hydrogen resulted from the Big Bang, de-ionized at 300,000 years from the beginning, then selectively re-ionized again, later on.)

The C-R theory claims that this 2.7 K is evidence instead of continuous recycling (of both matter and energy, by the most-perfect system ever).  A very big, predicted difference is that in the C-R theory, this 2.7 K is continually replenished, and will NEVER red-shift (cool-down over time).  In 1.5 billion years, and in 15 billion years, as seen from earth, this 2.7 K will always measure the same.

In the Big Bang (and probably the Big Bounce) scenario(s), as the universe expands and ages, the 2.7 K continually both cools-down and fades-out.  In 1.5 billion years time, it should probably both fade and cool by at least 1%, and potentially up to 10%.  Although this would be expected, it may occur too slowly to be determined within, say, 100-1000 years (or within our full, human lifetimes).

In the C-R theory scenario, however, there is another way to test which idea is correct.  By travelling to another location, either closer-in to the center (The Great Attractor) it should measure "cooler", or by travelling-out, towards the outer edges, the 2.7 K should measure warmer, respectively.  This is due to the actual time-frame of the residents there changing, and measuring the radiation differently.  HINT: IF we, on earth see a quasar with a 90% red-shift (to us), at that quasar, the 2.7 K should measure 27 K (ten times warmer, to their ten times slower time-frame), as measured in ALL directions.  This would not be the case if our universe is expanding uniformly between all mutual observers.

If for any reason, humanity could ever communicate with other civilizations from far-away, we might know instantly if this universe is expanding, or gravitationally red-shifted by asking them if they see earth as blue-shifted or red-shifted from their home world. (Unless they came from somewhere closer-in to the Great Attractor.  Then we should appear just-as red-shifted to them as they appear blue-shifted to us. (See the multi-part diagram for a simulated voyage through this universe, for an illustrated view of this idea at: http://www.cr-theory.org/get_pdf.aspx?pdf_url=voyage-universe.pdf)

Note: From anywhere inside this universe, the view one gets will still see complete red-shifts in all directions.  The size, and relative blue-ness of the Great Attractor will change with location.  Also: The Great Attractor will never "attract" anything.  If you will, gravitationally, it is the most "uphill" location in this universe.  One would need to acquire additional real-time energy to be able to approach there.  Despite the blue-shifting, it will NEVER pull or attract mass towards it.  Just like climbing a mountain, or flying skyward, one would need to expend (or add more) energy to go nearer. {The name was ironically based upon "scientific ignorance", much the same as when Ben Franklin guessed, with 50-50 odds, that "positive" electrical charges had an excess of something, rather than a lack-of electrons.  Continual use, over time, has reinforced and maintained the naming irony.}

I would challenge both critics and skeptics to find any simpler theory, using simpler assumptions, and with fewer violations of conservation of energy, which will fit our "real-world" universe, as observed and explain the observations in harmony with the theory.  I welcome any readers to suggest any observations, experimental outcomes, or tests, in which the C-R theory can be compared to the Big Bang hypothesis.

I have posted the C-R theory on the internet, for free, to allow any and all to take their best shots at it, find any flaws in my logic, to poke holes into any weaknesses they can find.  I cannot say the C-R theory has survived such challenges, merely it has escaped attack mostly by obscurity or simple dismissal.

I do wish to offer the C-R theory as a viable alternative to those theories presented in the standard media.  It is probably too radical, and too new for current consideration.  I hope to change that over time, and develop a small base of supporters, believers, accepters, and considerers who will honestly consider both C-R's merits and any weakness or failures they can find.  If the theory is partly or completely wrong, I would like to know it.

In my next blog, I will try to present what evidence the C-R theory supports, and look at areas where there should be a clear difference in expectations between the C-R theory and standard theories.  I welcome any readers out there to build-upon the C-R theory, to accept any areas you can, and replace or improve any areas if possible.  If the C-R theory is true, I expect some readers out there to discover items I've missed, to understand things I've never challenged or haven't thought-of yet.

I usually get some new thought or understanding every 6 months to a year, and uncover something in a new way of thinking.  I look forward to the time where observant readers can contribute to the discovery process.

I hope to add a link-to page sometime in 2009.  It will be near the end of the theory.  I do not wish to lead-away my hard-won readers too easily or too soon.  I would like to show some of the web-sites I've enjoyed, and some that have ideas useful to the C-R theory, even if they do not support the overall C-R theory.  I would like to help those skeptical of the standard theories to discover some of the alternatives.  I do feel safe in my belief that they will find no better overall theory than the C-R theory, when fairly compared with all others.

I also hope to provide some short video clips, explaining some of the C-R theory ideas in my own words, and with my chosen emphasis (and editing, too).  They should be short, between two and five minutes per concept.  I hope to cover such topics as: Is our Universe Closed or Open?, gravitational curvature, time slow-down, How Black-Hole's ^C-R work, recycling of matter-energy, anomalies known to science, but not appreciated, the Great Attractor, and what it really is, why supernovae continually expand, the double-negative ionization of ALL the hydrogen atoms in our sun's photosphere, what really powers our sun, are red-shifts really Doppler shifts?, and others as I think of them.  (Topics suggested by readers for my "pro-C-R" explanation will be considered.)

I might also like to do something on FAQ's.  

I might try to "advocate" some of the Observations and Illustrations diagrams, possibly featuring or highlighting special ones in each blog.  I designed these graphics to try to convey the more complex topics in colorful and visual terms, broken down into simple steps.  I do feel they are under-utilized, and they should help readers understand and visualize the concepts, if they are featured.  Please don't leave the C-R theory without checking some (preferably ALL) items on this page.

www.cr-theory.org/observations.aspx

Please feel free to write-in to the C-R theory, you can use the contact the author section on the bottom title bar to take you to a contact form.  I do value readers questions or comments.  Even skeptics questions and comments are welcome.

I was going to explain my thoughts on the making of the C-R theory. I would like to explain my take on gravitational curvature. Gravitational curvature can be thought of something like a shape-bending or capacity changing. Consider a balloon. Blow-up the balloon nearly full, then hold-on to the stem, but do not tie it off. If you let some or all of the air out of the balloon, this somewhat approximates how I envision curvature changing the capacity of matter to store "gravitational" energy. I also imagine a sponge lodged between two flat metal plates, with 4 screws adjusting the width of the plates between full capacity and decreasing to no capacity.

I do not know whether or not the capacity change caused by curvature is strictly dimensional, adding sub-dimensional loops smoothly, or fractal, adding smaller sub-dimensions in incremental {digital} jumps, with a possible non-continuous nature, something like a Sirpinski fractal. Whichever method nature chooses, I imagine the "path-length" increases for light (electromagnetic energy) when a slow-down occurs. This path-length change is the real cause of the red-shifts we detect in this universe. The way to tell for certain that this IS the case, is the appearance of "The Great Attractor".

If the red-shift is CAUSED by an expanding universe, there should be red-shifts everywhere. While it is true that there are red-shifts in every direction, there is also "The Great Attractor", where blue-shifts occur in one direction, up to a point. NOTE: Conventional theory can only explain this as an anomaly, otherwise, it has no "cause".

On the other hand, if our universe is FIXED in size, not expanding, and is closed-off and self-contained, then there must be a preferred reference frame superimposed over this universe. There will be NO curvature at the center, some additional curvature here at earth's location, and complete curvature in every direction. NOTE: If we are not at the exact center, then earth MUST be slowed-down somewhat as compared to the center.

NOTE: If this curvature-based red-shift is indeed the case, then science is adding a double-whammy to their thinking when they "correct" the observed visual data to remove the red-shift and restore the time-base on far-away objects to make them the same time-rate as here on earth. This means that the type 1a supernovas observed close-by and far-off do not occur at the same real time-rate. This extra mistake in reasoning is why current science believes that our universe is not only expanding, but expanding at an expanding rate.