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 30th 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.