Just this last weekend, myself and my web-master were shooting some video segments for the C-R theory, about an experiment you readers can do at home, in the privacy of your living room (or anywhere else), for under $1.00, which will disprove what some of the world’s greatest experts on gravity believe. I hope some of that footage gets available very soon. We also filmed a visual “joke”, where I stood with my head (apparently) aflame, saying “Another bright idea from the Comedy-Recycling theory”. We also have a blooper segment, where I am saying those lines, and a bus or truck drives behind me, and blocks off the flame-illusion. It should be a short attention grabber. I might also add that no photographers were burned in the making of the video, and kids, don’t try this at home. Attach a link to a still photo (or two) here. These photos are not composited or photo-shopped, although they may be cropped, reduced in size or resolution, or color-corrected or enhanced. That “bright idea” line may be added to the segment at the end, to add a little levity, and create an anticipation of humor to follow in additional segments.

The first segments we shot at the entrance to Gallery Place, right up the stairs by the bucking bronco statue. The first few segments we shot had high wind noise from the camcorder’s internal mike, and one of the later segments had a fire-truck siren to contend with. We also got a brief shot of a DC fire engine responding to a call, which could be added right after the bright idea (joke) segment reviewed above. We hope to shoot additional segments for later topics. I try to keep them brief, approx. 3 minutes, and not too heavy, topic wise. Whether I edit in graphics, or stick with a static shot, I don’t know yet. Commercial videos on the networks try to change the shots every 5 seconds or less, and often move the cameras and change the views constantly within those segments. With a budget fractions of that of commercial broadcast videos, I was not aiming for such a “sophisticated” level. Rather, I want to tell a very simple story, in my own words, with my own emphasis, with my own hand gestures, in a non-threatening way.

Whether it fades into well deserved obscurity, or gains some eventual notoriety, as a legitimate new idea, challenging the established Newtonian beliefs in gravity, totally unsuspected (hence, un-looked-for) by the majority of those in that field, remains to be seen. When the segment is ready for on-line viewing, I will place a link here.

I would like to eventually explain many of the most basic, simple ideas from the C-R theory, and I welcome readers suggestions for what areas they would like me to try to personally go over. Especially areas where readers (actually, writers-in), have trouble understanding what I am trying to describe.

Although the C-R theory ideas are new, they really are (or should-be) simple to understand. Almost all are derived from knowledge of existing designs, or existing solutions nature already uses. How the C-R theory uses these ideas IS new, but the ideas themselves are really all quite simple.

I would also like to acknowledge that this February, 2009, also represents the 30th anniversary of my understanding of the C-R theory, since I first glimpsed how events in this universe might be working. It is also the 3rd anniversary on-line at the Cr-theory.org web address. Additionally, we have recorded the 8,000th visitor, although the first months the hit counter was not added, so the true count is probably higher. Much of the material is relatively new, added or revised within the last 3 years. I believe my understanding has deepened, and I continually find articles in the media which seem to support the many overall C-R theory hypotheses. Among some of the most interesting, and pro-C-R items from last year: a finding that the measured aftermath of a supernova was almost totally dust-free. The standard view had been that there should be an enormous amount of freed-up “dust material” ejected from the supernova. Instead, the environment was “clean”. That the C-R theory would expect this, being positive-ionization driven, it is not at all surprising that the area might be almost totally devoid of residual dust. Scientists also found and measured a cosmic ray with 300 quintillion electron-volts of energy, a staggering sum for conventional physics to muster. I read elsewhere that each proton repelling another proton is around 1,000 electron-volts, so the 300 quintillion electron volts would “only” need 300 quadrillion protons simultaneously released, a “mere-pittance” to the quantities suspected to be released by the C-R theory supernova hypothesis.

I did find a web-site (I don’t remember specifically when, but it might have been last year) that listed at least 4 known stars that have changed their position or class on the H-R (Hertzsprung-Russell) charts, within a human lifetime. By standard hypothesis, this should take millions of years to change the mode of thermonuclear fusion that substantially within any star. I found out that now the measured current between Jupiter and Io is at least 5,000,000 AMPS, whereas I had seen 3,000,000 amps in earlier times. I also saw that NASA had measured a potential of 400,000 volts across the face of Io. That conventional theory would have a problem with that, in a predominantly “neutral” universe. That the C-R theory has this is possible evidence of substantial electrical activity right in our own “proverbial” backyard, right under our noses.

I just read an account of a huge “proton storm” measured here on earth in 2005, which arrived from our sun in something like 30 minutes. That “small belch” of protons might represent some-type of “less-than-nova-level” proton-escape, much closer to “home” than I had previously claimed. I suspect that it might be an “orders-of-magnitude-smaller” release than the nova, supernova… chain of proton-release events I have talked-about with the C-R theory.

There may well be some other articles within this last year that I can’t remember off the top of my head, but that place the C-R theory ideas within the realm of understanding real phenomena that we actually see going on all around us in this universe. I can honestly claim that I can’t remember ANY article suggesting some event or phenomenon which would seem to rule-out any of the main C-R theory ideas. In my next blog, I will relate a possible change I might have to make in the C-R theory’s understanding of a Black-Hole ^C-R eating another Black-Hole ^C-R.

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.