March 2010 Blog: C-R theory responses

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

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

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

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

Dear Sirs,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you,

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

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

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

Dear sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry Reynard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE LHC IS BACK ON LINE.

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

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

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

A HYPOTHETICAL "Note from God"

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

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

Jerry Reynard

Addendum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

Last modified 2, 2, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MORE LHC Speculations:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Second, much shorter allegorical story:

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

And now back to real Science:

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

Additional Speculations, Answers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PUN: Get the "Hole" Picture

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

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

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

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

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

GALAXIES:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NO "NEW LIGHT" ON THIS TOPIC:

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

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

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

Mass Changes Value:

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

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

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

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

Check-off List:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Jerry Reynard, Author and C-R Theory Advocate