Welcome to the 33,000^th visitor, and to the 33,333^rd visitors, and all others, too.  I wanted to note those milestones for this web site, before starting in on this month's main topic, FOUNDATIONS.

Foundations:

One of the most significant differences in the C-R theory is a "Foundation" issue. The C-R theory states that every Black-Hole ^C-R has a completely closed-off region inside.  This is a critical difference, to understand just how nature exploits this issue, and uses this inside region almost like a platform, or a foundation, to build the necessary part of the Black-Hole ^C-R, the region where spacetime is turned-off, or inactivated.

I would like to re-explain this concept yet again, to try to convey the real advantages to using this method, and show why I think nature has taken this approach already.

I am trying to help new arrivals to this web site understand just how profound of a difference the Black-Hole ^C-R has vs. a standard black hole.  The start of the understanding begins with just why a Black-Hole ^C-R cannot simply collapse into a singularity, as it's more famous counterpart (the standard "generic" black hole) is supposed to.

To start the appreciation process, let us imagine taking any famous structure built by mankind, then imagine throwing-away or removing the foundation.  Any monument or structure begins anchored to it's base, and depends upon it for stability, and to share forces generated when storms and stresses threaten it.  With a good foundation, those stresses are channeled and shared throughout the building, as the original architect anticipated.  While there have always been situations later-on that exceeded anything imagined by the builder, a generous safety margin sometimes holds the structure together, and minimizes damage.

If we deliberately remove the base any object was built-upon, we head for imminent danger.  There are very few manmade structures that could survive normal, everyday stresses without their foundations remaining intact (or some temporary bracing, if that structure is being moved or transported intentionally).  Most architects would cringe if we took their creations and threw-away their bases, leaving the structure unsupported and unanchored.

In the conventional black hole, however, there is absolutely NOTHING, structure-wise, upon which to build but the flimsiest of voids, or the emptiest of vacuums.  This arrangement continues until one reaches the centermost singularity, an unimaginably small region of near-infinite density, where newly-arrived matter and energy meet-up with all of the original matter-contents from the starting mass.  No equation on earth can account-for the processes that are expected to go on there, and no lab in this universe (that we know-of) can test or duplicate those "imagined" conditions.

All that is suspected is that the Newtonian-type attraction has yielded, or finally ceased, after that attraction has overcome the internal structural integrity of protons, neutrons, [and maybe the electrons too], or their internal sub-constituents (like quarks).

Where the difficulty should lie in this scenario, is, how can such an arrangement as the singularity convey back-out the knowledge-of {or the expression-of} the mass of the innermost contents, or does it?

This is where the real advantages of the C-R theory process come into play.  Start off with a mass, just a few atoms shy of complete-criticality, or almost-at the tipping point, with almost enough mass at almost the proper density to produce almost enough curvature (or gravity) to close-off that mass, or have the escape velocity equal (then exceed) the speed-of-light outside of that mass.

One of the most interesting items about this condition is that, at the center of that mass, the curvature is minium, or zero.  Only as you add-on mass outward from the center do you increase the overall curvature.  It is only at the outside edges, or right at the surface, that the curvature is MAXIMUM.  If you can understand this, and grasp it well, you can start to understand why this is a good idea.

In the curvature-based gravity concept, it is where the curvature is greatest, that the largest effect is created, or active {the light green area}.  The effect is still active (although fadingly intense) as we approach the center.  NOTE: The maximum action from curvature [but NO emissions] WILL occur at the outside edges, but never at all, at the center.

Now, when we throw on the final few atoms, to increase the internal mass to exactly where the escape velocity will EQUAL the speed-of-light, we would note that the greatest curvature, and the maximum external effect, would only occur at the outermost edges, while everything further inside remains virtually unaffected when the final few atoms are added.

When we cause gravity in this manner, {by the effect of curvature upon matter}, we maintain our full inside base intact, to create the closed-off conditions at ONLY the outer edges, now "OFFICIALLY" a Schwarzschild radius, after the curvature equals "c".

Personal Note: The C-R theory attempts to avoid the conventional use of the label: "event horizon", to also describe this outermost barrier or boundary.  In conventional thinking, where the outer appearance shows only the fading and dimming light, trailing-off as something external approaches, then enters-in, the external appearance only relies upon the "leftovers of light".

In a practical sense, by studying this leftover-light [conventionally, the event horizon], the appearance will not gain any good understanding.  For this reason, the C-R theory recommends discarding any ideas mentioning or utilizing the appearance, as seen from the "event horizon".  This suggests returning to the consideration of the original math description of Schwarzschild radius.  That situation is more-like a marker, or a city's proud "Welcome to ..." sign, denoting a real change in jurisdiction, or announcing a "new set of rules" to be governed-by, once you cross-over (in)to that side. When you are officially "inside a Black-Hole ^C-R", some of the old rules just do not apply.

The nicest part of this "new" arrangement is, only the "lawless" region, where the escape velocity is greater than the speed-of-light, would be unfamiliar territory to us. Immediately inside this volume, there is a completely intact, but fully closed-off region, where ALL of the science, physics, and math rules we ARE familiar with totally APPLY.

What was necessary in understanding why that inside volume could not collapse, was to show how the process benefits both the inside and outside.  Only by establishing that "Foundation" [on the inside] could we create those internal conditions necessary to bring the escape velocity over lightspeed at the Schwarzschild radius.  This volume becomes the Neutral Zone ^C-R, in the C-R theory, and the properties arise BECAUSE OF the escape velocity EXCEEDING the speed-of-light.

By preventing electromagnetic energy from "cruising-around" normally, (at lightspeed), and trapping it inside a resonance-well, where it technically "resonates" at lightspeed [but in another, "hidden" dimension], it cannot communicate knowledge effectively out-of the Black-Hole ^C-R.  The knowledge-of the pent-up electrical charge cannot just travel anywhere, like go from any "point A" to any other "point B".  Nature "jails" both matter and the photons, or light-energy, inactivating them, preventing any form of interaction.

This "protective custody" concentrates everything incoming, and packs it in, reestablishing order (entropy) by this arrangement.  This "forces" a restoration of entropy, by increasing the orderliness of everything, while establishing the mechanism whereby gravity can later-on be overcome, if those contents become "de-contorted-enough" to be freed.

This escape process might be enhanced by a close encounter from one Black-Hole ^C-R nearing another Black-Hole ^C-R, if the averaged-out volume-of the curvature directly-between the two entities slips again below lightspeed.  This starts the process, where the instantaneous explosion can release energies exceeding any known process that mainstream science understands.  Think of mass and energy trapped over millennia or eons, suddenly freed-up.

While this sudden freeing of the contents would be totally useless from a conventional black hole's electrically neutral diet, the uniqueness of the C-R theory concept declares that the Black-Hole ^C-R predominantly captures only the protons and neutrons, while allowing virtually all of the electrons to escape the capture process. This is where the true "genius" of nature's design (which I am uncovering, {or speculating-upon}, but not creating from scratch) benefits from a systemic approach. All of the individual pieces of the C-R theory process are useless individually, but priceless, when they are combined, as a group, into a fully functioning part of a complete system.

I can only emphasize, this is why this particular mechanism was chosen (by nature or by the Creator).  By connecting the smaller parts to appreciate a complete system in operation, the interconnections become more obvious, and the reasons for those choices become more necessary. (I did not create these ideas, I believe I was allowed to understand them.  I then felt obligated to share them, for free, just in case they are true or correct.)

What I am trying to do is to present these items in a logical manner, and describe them in such a way that if nature has truly chosen this method, that indications of this system should "leak-out" in known observations.  

(Remember that the events, as seen from earth, and as described in the available literature, are presented by people who were not brought-up to think in the C-R theory way, and who have no interest in supporting it.  The events are described as if they fit-in to the current mode of thinking, and are part of those simple processes.  Extra electrons and stored-up positive charges do not fit in to these world-views, so they are not expecting any such things to be occurring.)

I would hope to alert scientists to things that might help to establish whether the C-R theory is credible, or imaginary.  I am trying to show where to look, and the types of things to give new significance to the C-R theory in everyday operation.  Are these ideas plausible, and does nature already offer some direct evidence that Black-Holes ^C-R rather than fusion, provide the majority of the energy interactions we observe?  If we were to deliberately look-for indications of a C-R theory-like energy creation alternative, could it be ruled-in, or ruled-out?

By presenting these ideas publicly, I hope to alert many people to this alternative view, and give the C-R theory a chance to sink or swim.

Further comments on the C-R theory

Here are a few items I meant to comment on earlier, but forgot-about at that time. There was a blog column in Astronomy magazine, commenting upon the confidence that science has over things that are taught and believed.  Most of what is currently taught about the conventional black hole has a very low confidence level, since there is virtually no way to test any of that which is accepted, but not provable.

While I also cannot prove the C-R theory, what I can do is recommend things to look for which demonstrate that a C-R theory-like process is going-on, and there is ample evidence already known-about (but successfully ignored, or not connected-in).

There is an abundance of electrical activity occurring almost everywhere within this solar system, yet science thinks that space is mostly electrically neutral, and that charge imbalances will average-out, or spread-out without accumulating.  A really good clue is the flux-tube current, occurring cyclically, between Jupiter and Io.  It can be as high as 5,000,000 amps (with each amp representing 602,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 electrical charges EVERY SECOND) which should clue-in you home-readers that hmmm, maybe there is something electrical going-on.

Mind you, this is only one instance, among ALL known electrical-like phenomenon, like aurorae, lightning (thunderstorms), ion-belts, magnetic fields, solar winds (accelerating as it LEAVES the sun's vicinity).  Somehow science misses this "evidence" of mega-electrical activity, right under our "collective" noses, because it does not fit in to their paradigm of "How this solar system works".

I'll give you a small hint, these electrical charges do not just occur on their own, but they have a source {or many sources}.  If we simply suppose that activity like this occurs outside the solar system, too, we have a significant amount of activity.

When science is looking for mysterious dark matter, to hold together the galaxy arms, they ignore the most obvious answer, that electromagnetism holds together the arms, and drives the rotation, too.  But, since there is not supposed to be that much electrical activity (or magnetism), science is looking for non-existent "dark matter" to provide the missing force of whatever is needed for what gravity does not.

The C-R theory states that at least some of the stars themselves release tremendous quantities of excess electrons, released by the Black-Holes ^C-R powering most stars.  After all, would not you use the most efficient energy-releasing mechanism, if YOU were designing a universe.  Fusion obtains 0.7% of the available energy from hydrogen, whereas the Black-Hole ^C-R can extract about 50% of the rest-mass energy.  

Additionally, instead of choking-off the fusion when the mix of the hydrogen to helium drops below an optimal percentage, the drop-off of hydrogen to helium ratio by half does not "poison" the gravitational-energy mix, or shift it into another gear.  This could make Black-Hole ^C-R powered star-lifetimes last 100 times as long as a fusion-powered star.  NOTE: If you have the patience (and the ability) to wait around that long, you can check it yourself {or disprove it, if it does not}.

Unfortunately, in our fast-paced society, there is nothing vaguely resembling that amount of tolerance for a delay in waiting for the correct answers.  That puts the C-R theory at a competitive disadvantage, to conclusively determine the correct answer, right now.

That is why I have tried to list a few of those known objects or phenomenon which can give the home reader some idea that there are many C-R theory-like processes going-on, and already written-about, but that the indications of those results have been reported by individuals with no "expectation" of something like that happening.  That makes it a bit more difficult to be truly objective.  What one needs to do it to look for massive electrical-charge displacement in action, and summarize those type-of results.

One of the rare few places where extreme electrical (magnetic) activity takes place is in magnetars.  The known magnetars all have enormous magnetic fields, far above the wimpy "1 million Teslas" practical limit experienced in labs here on earth.  When attempting to deal with higher continuous magnetic fields, our labs experience catastrophic failures in our measuring equipment.  This limits the experimental results that can be replicated on earth to a really puny level, as compared to the desired levels.

One could also try to investigate the levels of polarized light in this universe. Polarized light is everywhere, and comes from every direction.  What should surprise scientists is the level of polarization known about.  Polarized light can only be caused by huge electrical fields, or strong magnetic fields.

Has anyone added-up the amounts of polarized light, and then announced the amounts of electrical currents, or magnetic fields required to polarize just what we know about?

I will admit that I do not know how many additional stars out there have a double-negative ionization of their photospheres, like our sun does.  If one considers that for heating hydrogen gas up to over 6,000° C, our sun's photosphere's hydrogen atoms each pick-up an additional electron, instead of shedding their electrons as the gas is heated.

This might not be anomalous IF our sun is powered by a Black-Hole ^C-R, which is continually emitting excess electrons, and the photosphere is where it shows-up. Possibly, there is another intelligent alternative to explain this anomaly.  One thing for certain is that I have just not imagined-it, but that this anomaly exists.  It certainly has not been widely touted as something of interest.

One final item I noticed this last week was that Science News, July 2, 2011 covered an announcement from Robert Quimby of Caltech that there is possibly a new class of a type of supernova discovered.  What is most interesting is that scientists have ruled out the 3 leading energy producers for most supernovae, including radioactive decay of the remnants.  That may be good for the C-R theory, because it has a new type of energy producer (the sudden freeing-up of confined protons and neutrons).  Interestingly, most of the light is in the ultraviolet band.  Apparently, no trace of hydrogen is seen either.

I will keep reading on this new find, and see if it appears to fit in to a C-R theory-like mold, or is something not (yet) compatible.

That should do it for this blog.  I hope to have more items for next time, and cover some more basic areas in a new manner.  Again, feel free to use the contact the author section from the home page to contact me, if you have suggestions or questions. Thank you all for visiting, and re-read sections if you need to to see how the whole theory fits-in to a working system.

Until I can convince enough others of the validity of these ideas, and get them to help to share these concepts elsewhere, the C-R theory web pages will be your only source for these ideas.  If I can find similar ideas elsewhere that can help the home-readers understand these new concepts, or to illustrate the points, I will pass those along, too.

July 11, 2011

Blog for June, 2011

I had been wanting to do this blog for a while, and I am finally getting around to it. My webmaster found a tremendous quote, which summarizes the C-R theory's dilemma.

Here is the quote:

"The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds."
  --John Maynard Keynes

What the quote says is the real challenge for the C-R theory, purging-out the old information sufficiently to allow a newer and better model to take hold.  I can say that I do not enjoy being the bearer of bad news, or to be the one who must tell others that I think they are very wrong.  I would much rather be one of the multitude to go along with the consensus.

Where the problem originates is that I believe the multitude is wrong.  I cannot prove it, but I can suggest where to look, what to look for, how to measure it, and the general indications of a C-R theory Black-Hole ^C-R in the vicinity.

The C-R theory will try to suggest why nature is so fond of Black-Holes ^C-R, and finds them so useful.  I would like to cover, in the most ironic way, the major ideas that only the C-R theory seems to have noticed.  If science were truly objective, these items should have been obvious enough to have been noted long ago.

Where the irony lies is that the real amateurs, and newcomers will probably gain the ability to grasp these new concepts from the C-R theory long before the professionals will accept these ideas. This stems more because they are not as firmly welded to the older Newtonian ideas about gravity, and are more ready to accept the curvature-based ideas.  They can appreciate the benefits to this new way of thinking, and are more willing to accept the evidence that is already known about.

To help "sell" the C-R theory ideas, I thought I would try to state them simply, and try to allude to their simplicity, to make it more obvious that there could be (and SHOULD BE) a connection that nature is keen to exploit.

One of the first "obvious" items that science has totally overlooked is that a Black-Hole ^C-R selects and attracts it's dinner BY MASS.  All Black-Holes ^C-R eat the heavier subatomic particles, like the proton and the neutron, while the quantum "iffiness", or nature of the electrons spreads them out sufficiently that the electrons escape, and flee the vicinity.  The electrons "fluffiness" allows them to remain far enough away from the nucleus to flee, and avoid becoming dinner.

What I imagine is that the electron-cloud can escape-away as long as 50.0...01% of the electron-cloud remains active, outside the Schwarzschild radius, and no more than 49.9...9% enters in.  This is one case where the C-R theory supports quantum tunnelling, in the case of the electrons escaping as part of the menu-entree.

When beams of matter are seen leaving the Black-Hole's ^C-R vicinity, The C-R theory maintains it is the "rejected" electrons grouping together magnetically to flee, in spite of each electrons natural repellence for their fellow free-electrons.  Because they bunch together and collimate to over 99.99% of the speed of light, this gives the whole group the ability to punch-out and get away.

The next area is where the C-R theory has the most profound differences with the mainstream.  The real "business-end" of the Black-Hole ^C-R is immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  This is THE ONLY interesting portion of the Black-Hole ^C-R, and the only volume of spacetime where the total gravitational energy is MINIMUM.  If you can imagine, the escape velocity in that volume [the Neutral Zone ^C-R] is at or above the speed-of-light.  What this accomplishes is it "traps" the particles and photons in their individual "resonance-wells" from which they are incapable of escaping.

While this would be catastrophic by most understandings, this is what prevents any external knowledge of the trapped particles from "leaking out" regardless of the amount of trapped charges present.  This is also the prime reason that the Black-Hole ^C-R exists, to trap, collect, concentrate, and refresh matter and energy in a recoverable manner.

A new note here for 2011: The Black-Hole ^C-R does such a magnificent job of "camoflaging" or hiding the trapped electrical charges, that science has completely missed that this is going-on.  Science believes that: Since gravity "escapes" from a Black-Hole ^C-R, so will knowledge of stored electrical charges and spinning mass.  The C-R theory states that there is a totally different mechanism to produce gravity (called curvature) and to express "speed-of-light" based forces.  The "speed-of-light' based forces are suppressed, or turned-off [But never, NEVER eliminated].

Although it is not "standard science": From the millions of Black-Holes ^C-R suspected to exist, one would wonder just why nature is so fond of them.  If they were as useless as standard theory suspects, that would make a "fool" of nature, big-time, for using so many.

On the other hand, if the Black-Hole ^C-R was designed to fulfill a purpose that could be handled (as well) by no other object within this universe, nature would need a very large number.

The C-R theory idea is that Black-Holes ^C-R are essential "tools" of nature to recycle matter and energy.  The Black-Hole ^C-R stores-up the protons and neutrons in an electrically neutral manner.  The important point is that, once the Black-Hole ^C-R is primed, any external disturbance may suffice to trigger the escape mechanism.

Two tests, to show that this might be occurring would be to look for "excess positive charge" accumulations in supernovae, and excess electrons shed outside of every "dining" Black-Hole ^C-R.  Where this is apparent, the supernova expansion may continue for thousands of years beyond the time where a simple expansion (driven only by the initial heat) would have cooled down.

While I cannot say that this happens in all supernovas, there are some known that do have excessive positive charges. (Place links here)

Another critical area to the proper role of understanding is that, in the C-R theory Black-Hole ^C-R, at the exact center of the Black-Hole ^C-R curvature is at a minimum, and the potential energy of matter there is MAXIMUM, or, essentially identical to matter lying far from the Black-Hole ^C-R.  This compares to the hypothesized black hole, with a near-infinitely dense singularity.  Science believes the exact opposite of what is more likely to be true.

I will cover another aspect of the Black-Hole ^C-R plan in the next section of this blog.

I would also like to cover an article by Steve Nadis (which was the featured cover story, on the cover, too) titled Beyond the Event Horizon.  I read it in the June, 2011 Discover Magazine, (with the text starting on page 29) concerning new ideas from Andrew Hamilton, a professor at Colorado University (Boulder).

The article deals with his insights into the interior of a conventional black hole, derived from supercomputer simulations and from years of study.  There are some very close similarities to his thinking, and that of the C-R theory.  His equations do seem to recognize the two Schwarzschild radii, the outer one (also thought-of as the event horizon), and another one, somewhat further inside.

According to this article, his computer simulations expect that, at the inner Schwarzschild radius, the energy level is near infinite for matter residing inside.  He believes that some matter may experience a time-like reversal while actually journeying towards the singularity, whereas other matter may experience ever increasing energy accelerations on the way to the singularity*. (Equations simply DO NOT understand, and cannot handle what happens when the escape velocity is OVER the speed-of-light.)

This is one area where the C-R theory expects something completely different.  In this special zone [the Neutral Zone ^C-R], because the escape velocity is above the speed-of-light, this neutralizes all electromagnetic activity.  What happens is that this entire inside region IS already forced-into a minimum-energy configuration since light cannot move-about freely.  Because of this, the expected activity level (by mainstream science) is literally undetectable.  While matter and energy both "exist", they are essentially shut-down, unresponsive, turned-off, jailed, and confined.

The C-R theory therefore expects that this whole region, between the two Schwarzschild radii, acts something like a one-way piggy bank, where nature safely keeps everything that was swallowed, compactly stored.  Because of the extremely-ionized character of the protons (unaccompanied by their original electrons), if any external disturbance can "shift that level of curvature" downward [out of the Neutral Zone ^C-R], that will allow the internal contents to start to explosively escape. (Hint: Think of a "Jack-in-the-box", opening-up after reaching that certain "POP".)

The lowest-possible-energy (and real-time) level imposed-upon this region makes this region the ideal "tool" for restoring entropy, as re-concentrating both {while emitting nothing} forces both matter and energy to be 100% thermodynamically efficient.  This is the second part of nature's grand strategy for Black-Holes ^C-R (as compared to black holes, which only end-up with "enlarged" singularities).

It is this practical "ecological" use of the Black-Hole ^C-R, and the dual-use of the existing properties of matter to accomplish a second, vital mission (restoring entropy, and recovering 100% of everything eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R) that convinced me that I had uncovered something interesting.

NOTE: That new understanding was 100% dependent on a new understanding the role of curvature, and how it allowed "gravity" to be felt outside the Black-Hole ^C-R, while radiating absolutely nothing.

Interestingly, at the end of an article in the newest Scientific American Magazine, June, 2011 issue, (and also their cover story), titled Living in a Quantum World (starting on page 38), by Vlatko Vedral, is on the Quantum-nature of large-scale objects.  Near the very end, the possibility was also recognized (or suggested that it might be the case) that gravity IS NOT a true force, on an equal playing-field with electricity.

To quote excerpts from next to last paragraph on page 43: (the) "... possibility is that gravity is not a force in its own right...  If true, it would demote gravity from the status of a fundamental force..." While not fully embracing the C-R theory concept that gravity is an after-effect (or a leftover residue) from the property of curvature changing the energy-carrying capacity of mass, caused by curvature "modulating" the mass'es capacity, allowing it to absorb (or incorporate more real-time) energy, or releasing energy (as acceleration, or kinetic energy) when a mass is dropped into "a slower-timeframe", and forcing-out a small amount of stored energy.

While conventional theories conclude that we now live in "a golden age of galaxies", which will fade-away with time, the C-R theory concludes that our universe has always looked approximately like it looks, right now, and it always maintains that consistency. [I will not fill-in that idea right now, in this blog.  It has been covered in earlier blogs.]

The Discover article goes on to suggest that Prof. Hamilton will try to tackle the expected difficulties further inside, in the (conventional) black hole.  This is where I think the C-R theory insights from the last 30 years might come in very useful.  Further inside, the C-R theory expects that there is a fully closed-off region, exactly critical, with exactly enough matter, at exactly the right density, to close-off this section.

This is not a coincidence, but it is the reason that the Black-Hole ^C-R is fully-established in the first place.  It is this completely-closed region (or volume) at the center that establishes the complete [100% of lightspeed] curvature to make the Neutral Zone ^C-R possible, and all of the additional mass consumed only adds-in to the Neutral Zone ^C-R.  This C-R theory Neutral Zone ^C-R is sort-of the business end of the Black-Hole ^C-R, but it is also the same region suspected by Prof. Hamilton's simulations.  The results are totally different, but the parallels are encouraging.  If he is willing to accept my thinking, I could show him just how simple the real answer is.

HINT: Our "complete universe" is just such an Active Zone ^C-R, or IS an inside of a (very large sized) Black-Hole ^C-R.  All of it's observable properties suggest that this is the case, already, (and always has been so, although that part is not as obvious).

Andrew Hamilton's approach is much closer to the C-R theory's view, and that is why I might be able to help him realize a very simple solution, with testable answers (that have already been passing my tests for 30 years).  His goals (to learn the true nature of a Black-Hole ^C-R) are the same as those of the C-R theory, although our methods are totally different.

What I would hope to guide him to is a totally new (to him) way to approach the Black-Hole ^C-R, by understanding the situation it is in.  While this method does not rely upon the equations for insight (which is better, because those equations simply fail to cover any situation wherever the escape velocity is over lightspeed), there is a simplicity and straightforwardness to the C-R theory's approach that makes it intuitive, and testable.

Since his ideas are also featured on videos he made for a local science museum, he has produced some videos simulating what the inside of the (conventional) black hole is supposedly like.  I hope I can eventually find someone capable of producing a simulation for what I imagine the Neutral Zone ^C-R would be like. [Boring, but necessary to understand how "being-forced" into doing absolutely NOTHING could prove useful to nature.]

The article in Discover writes about his desire to find others with potential insights, and I figure that I may well be the only one of those few who thinks he has a new answer.  I would at least like to pitch my ideas to him, one-on-one, and try to guide him to a new line of reasoning.  I would hope I could build upon the ideas he has already understood that virtually no other current professional has championed.  It would be a much shorter jump for him to convert-over-to (or try a test-drive-of) the C-R theory ideas.  Who better (than me) to advocate it's potential usefulness and cover the path of reasoning that suggests why this is a good idea.

The C-R theory is the only theory I know-of that wants evidence of excess electrons to be found associated with every Black-Hole's ^C-R diet.  That I have publicly stuck-my-"C-R theory's" neck on the chopping-block, to live-or-die with the results, if excess electrons are not found in every feeding Black-Hole's ^C-R vicinity, might demonstrate my sincerity of beliefs.  I have found enough known instances where this seems to be the case that it goes beyond a random coincidence.

I think I am the happiest person on the planet about the two, 25,000 light-year-tall lobes filled with excess electrons, and possessing 100,000 supernova's worth of energy, found last-year above and below our galaxy's central bulge.  This may well be nature's best gift to the C-R theory, evidence-wise.  (I have not yet seen any other theory overjoyed with the results of that new finding.)

One of the recent specials on cable-tv stated that scientists now believe there are at least 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R stuffed-in to the central 3 light-years of our galaxy's center.  I know of no other theory which expects that one Black-Hole ^C-R (representing matter already at it's gravitational-minimum-energy) will not eat another Black-Hole ^C-R, much less gravitationally attract it.  This is completely-opposite of the Newtonian expectations, where every large mass gravitationally attracts every other large mass, ALL of the time.

Once one realizes that matter at (a gravitational) minimum-energy has already lost everything lose-able, so that no further energy loss is possible, one realizes the Newtonian view MUST BE WRONG in this particular instance.  (Hint: Can an ice cube already at absolute zero further cool-off another ice cube also at absolute zero, no. They are already BOTH as low, temperature-wise, as is possible.) Only after one thinks in this manner, can one start to appreciate the difference in expectations from a Black-Hole ^C-R, as a "container-of: a minimum-energy region in space-time", vs. a black hole, where gravity continually surrenders energy based only upon position, with no accountability ever placed upon a source, or a host to provide that energy.

This is one of the KEY differences in the C-R theory's expectations.  Matter inside a Black-Hole ^C-R IS ALREADY AT MINIMUM energy.  It cannot go any lower.

This region is where conventional {Newtonian} equations expect huge energies to be available, continually liberated from matter, almost like an M.C. Escher waterfall, or a perpetual-energy machine.

This is why there are no "celestial-fireworks" noted when Black-Holes ^C-R approach each other, and there are no space-rattling, dimension-shakings released (or radiated-away) when Black-Holes ^C-R merge, because they never (or very rarely) do so.  Even if they do merge, it is more like watching an ice-cube at absolute zero melt, or adding a zero to a zero (or multiplying a zero by another zero).  Your "nothing" does not change or increase by merging again and again with other "nothings".

I have been noticing this web-sites statistics that we are gaining a lot of visitors from China recently, and also from Japan a short while ago.  The site was not designed for a literal translation, in some instances, so I hope the on-line translators do it justice.  I fear that the "Comedy" portion will make no sense at all, or be total nonsense, if it is literally translated.

On the other hand, I am glad that they seem to be visiting in increasing numbers, and they are all welcome to try-to understand it.  I hope that at least some of those visitors can start to comprehend my ideas.  I do apologize that some of the ideas are too new and too different from the current thinking to catch-on (and be accepted) right away.

I would invite anyone to write-in if there are concepts you do not understand, or if you have further questions.  I keep hoping that other individuals will start to re-post, and possibly re-describe these ideas in their language, once they begin to understand what I am trying to convey.  I do try to answer sincere questions from readers, and they help me to improve my communications, once I know where common misconceptions (about my ideas) occur.

That I know of, there is no other web-site that I have found that approaches understanding a Black-Hole ^C-R in similar terms.  I continually attempt to find new ways to pass along these concepts, to show why these new ideas may be reasonable (although they may seem very strange at first).

I would agree with anyone that, by the existing text-books, the C-R ideas are absurd, and cannot occur.  Over the years of science, the books of the day are only as good as the people who write them, and they must build-upon that which they have been taught, or understood.

I cannot say that I was "taught" the C-R theory directly.  The ideas evolved at one specific time (early February 1979), bundled-together as a "package-deal".  I can state that when I contemplated why gravity was present outside a (generic) black hole, but light could not emerge, it was the sudden understanding of HOW nature could accomplish that task, without resorting to magic or "pulling a rabbit out of a hat" {i.e., getting something from nothing}, that I have refined for 30 some years.

While I could not prove the C-R theory academically (or in a court of law), there is a straightforward simplicity to it, a human-understandability [without requiring multiple Ph.D's], that I find very satisfying.  I believe I understand it, and have simple new insights into how our universe really works.

There seems to be a predictive ability to suggest where to look, phenomena to look-for, and how to test these ideas against reality.  I would agree with critics that the C-R theory requires outrageous things, as understood by conventional theory.  That nature often seems to supply just those type-of outrageous items, in every place one looks, may demonstrate that science has been missing many items because "they could not, and should not be so".

After I started thinking in this new manner, and after I understood how these Black-Holes ^C-R fill-in an ecological gap in this universe, and occupy a niche that no other real object can replace.  The real "new" question is: If nature DOES NOT use something like (this method), then, WHY NOT?

My goal is also to slowly slide the incoming reader along a progressive path, from first-hearer, skeptic, understander, appreciater, advocater, and lastly teacher or instructor.  That fewer numbers will reach each higher (next) level, but slowly, the cycle of learning will advance.

If the C-R theory is wrong, then we will know yet another way nature does not work. If that is the case, then why have I seen so many items that seem to support that hypothesis? I have tried to list many of them, to show that it is not ALL in my imagination.

It took me many years before I felt a strong enough conviction to place my name on these items, and place them on-line, on the internet, and claim that this might be how nature works.  If only part-of these new ideas is correct, then we have additional information that was never known before.

From what I have read, Newton was never happy at all that gravity acted at a distance, with no direct mechanical connection, like a lever or a pulley, which would have been accepted in medieval times.  The problem is: he succeeded too well in describing how matter behaved when falling from above the surface of the earth.

Make no mistake though, science HAS NOT TESTED the Newtonian concept for matter falling (and accelerating?) while below the earth's surface, for any appreciable distance.  Most textbooks simply accept the concepts, and never give-away that WE CANNOT test the results, even down to the bottom of earth's crust, much less to anywhere further below.  (That DOES NOT stop professors from boldly testing students on the answers for what gravity IS THOUGHT to do, even though, the results [like dropping a ball all the way down to the core-mantle boundary, and monitoring the acceleration all that way down] are way beyond today's technology.

I would encourage everyone to do the simple experiment on gravity, but with a viewpoint "assuming" a curvature-based understanding, and simply check the answer that nature already gives you.  If you do not sense a paradox, or perceive a conundrum, try the experiment again with the view "Does gravity TRULY accelerate mass from MAXIMUM curvature, all the way, back down to MINIMUM curvature" somewhere else, if it WILL NOT DO SO right in front of you, where you CAN actually test it? If so, is not gravity inconsistent, or double-standarded? {an intentionally awkward term is intended here to suggest the true irony of the result vs. the standard expectations}

I do not mind if you do not believe ME, but ask gravity (or curvature) for a straight answer, as you test it, and honestly evaluate the answer that you get, every time.

As the last part of this blog, although I do not ENJOY saying so, in order for the C-R theory ideas to catch-on worldwide, it might be necessary to replace TWO generations of experts.  Those who are alive and well today (who clearly do not believe these new ideas), and the generation that was taught by them.  Afterward, a new generation will arise to look freshly at the C-R theory ideas, and not feel that they are wrong.  By then, newer pioneers may come along, and see through areas where I was wrong, or clung-on too tightly to old ideas I could not overcome, and learned an even truer nature for how this universe works.

I often invite readers to test the C-R theory ideas, and let them evolve to become your ideas, too.  There may still be plenty of "undiscovered treasures" remaining within that I have not yet uncovered.  I expect that there may well be very simple items that have not occurred to me, that the interested home reader may find obvious.  If this is the case, I look forward to any items the home-reader can tie-in, and connect to the C-R theory ideas.

That I know-of, there are no graduate students intentionally trying to prove, or disprove the C-R theory ideas, or to evaluate the claims with a supercomputer, to see if there is any validity to them.

I would also invite any budding filmmakers-to-be to produce short videos illustrating the Black-Hole ^C-R eating the heavy nucleus, and rejecting the electrons.  I would also like to see short videos illustrating the release of the pent-up positive charges.  This will contribute towards the incredible staying-power of the supernova, and why they continue to expand long after they should have cooled-off.

Thank you for visiting the C-R theory blog.  I hope you find these ideas reasonable, or at least challenging.  I always try to note the most recent developments, and look for items that could tie-in to the C-R theory's expectations.

If you do not believe these ideas at first, that is expected.  Just keep in mind the arguments I used, and consider the areas I have mentioned.  Mull them over, in your mind, and try to appreciate their overall simplicity.  Try to imagine why nature might chose to operate this way, and how it solves some dilemmas.  If you honestly cannot accept these ideas for now, keep the C-R theory in mind, and look for many of the phenomenon I tried to alert you to.  Check back in a few months, or a year, or 5 years, and re-evaluate how these ideas hold-up over time.

Jerry Reynard

Is something wrong with our universe, or just with our science?
HINT: Maybe it is the theory "science" uses to understand the universe that is wrong!!!

I was delighted to see this month (April, when I was writing this) that both Scientific American, and Science News had cover articles about problems with our universe, and the Big Bang.  The April 2011 issue of Scientific American featured an article about quantum gaps in the Big Bang theory, and how that theory must be either fixed or replaced.   Shortly after that, Science News for April 23, 2011 had a cover article about cosmic questions, unraveling the universe's greatest mysteries.

Both magazines stated that there is good evidence that scientists DO NOT understand the basic workings of our universe, and there is more mystery than certainty about the ultimate fate of this universe.  The Scientific American article pointed out that inflation, where the universe was thought to have expanded greatly in a very brief period immediately after the initial Big Bang, had more opportunities to ruin our universe than to get it just right. The author, Paul J. Steinhardt, covered the case for inflation, and the equally (if not more-) compelling case against it.  His conclusion is that new data, which should be acquired this year, may confirm or reject the case for the initial wave of inflation.

The Science News articles featured a group of 5 different (but related) articles by different authors, mostly reviewing science's lack of understanding why our universe's behavior seems so mysterious.  To interested readers, I would call your attention to the box on page 21, and two specific items of interest: (1): In 1917, Einstein applies general relativity to the universe, and then, later work by Willem de Sitter and Aleksandr Friedmann IMPLIES the possibility that the universe might be expanding.  Now, combine this with (2): In 1929, Hubble finds that the universe is expanding after analyzing the redshifts of distant galaxies.

"Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding" : This is where a loud warning-bell should clang, and science should take note: This IS where the starting ERROR LIES (pun intended).

The C-R theory maintains that these two items from the Science News chart summarize nicely EXACTLY WHERE the MISTAKE was made.  The C-R theory, almost alone, points out that: WHOA Nellie (an old saying, stopping a runaway horse, or cautioning against too great a leap of connection), there is ANOTHER POSSIBILITY, overlooked these many years.  

That new possibility is: The increasing redshift with distance HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the universe EXPANDING, but comes entirely from gravitational curvature, where matter ELSEWHERE is NOT just LIKE matter here on earth, but is subtlely changed, i.e., slowed-down, warped, bent, distorted {as in, elongated-pathway for light, stretched-out, taking MORE TIME to make the same-distance journey}.

THIS IS where science's BIGGEST MISTAKE of the last 100 years happened.  Two unconnected items, a speculation about this universe from a theory, and a legitimate observation about increasing redshifts with increased distance, were taken as PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT, when reasonable doubt SHOULD HAVE won the battle!!!

Wishful thinking, topped with real evidence (in favor of expansion) were taken as proof, when what should have happened was for legitimate critics to challenge that the increasing redshifts could also be due to curving of spacetime (also an idea from general relativity, discarded in the process).

Just this last year, scientists demonstrated that when one atomic clock was lifted up by a "measly 33 cm" in earth's gravity, it ran faster by a minuscule amount.  This item MUST NOW BE CONSIDERED, in light of the ALMOST UNIVERSAL acceptance [of the redshift-expansion = PROOF] which has ignored the REAL alternative.  This idea has been taken seriously by almost NO ONE, except for the C-R theory.

Coincidentally, it is this very effect, where gravitational curvature CAUSES the time slowdown [and NEVER operates in THE REVERSE, where GRAVITY first causes the curvature], where the C-R theory claims that science has "put the CART before the HORSE".

This is why the C-R theory claims "You must try to understand this FUNDAMENTAL concept, where it IS the slowdown of spacetime, or gravitational curvature, in effect, changing the properties of mass, {packing-in more energy, or squeezing-out more energy} that CAUSES the aftereffect we notice as gravity." It IS this "change in expectations" that has lead to a total change in behavior expected from gravity.

In short: Curvature ALWAYS causes gravity.  NEVER, ever, does gravity CAUSE curvature.  The two ARE NOT equivalent, and are not interchangeable, one IS NOT the same as the other.  There is a clear, MASTER-slave type relationship here, but curvature is the real ruler, the true champion, with gravity as the dependant.  Science has had the roles reversed these last 90 some years, and missed completely the cause-effect relationship. (And, the misunderstanding of the ENTIRE universe WAS the result.)

To restate this simply, if the universe, as it is seen, does not make perfectly good sense to you, TRY CHANGING THE THEORY YOU USE to understand it with. [STRONG HINT to the home-reader: Try the C-R theory first, since this IS it's website HERE.]

As an example, let us consider a simple case of a hypothetical bowling ball. (I do not, in fact, own one.) If I were to seriously propose to you home readers that MY bowling ball was expanding in size continually, always increasing in mass, and always doing so at an increasing rate: I would be dismissed as seriously deluded, and mostly ignored.

Compare this to your generally accepted cosmologist, describing YOUR universe in exactly those same terms: Ever increasing size, ever accelerating, with NO KNOWN available source of energy to do so, and THE WORLD accepts it, grudgingly, because "they must know what they're talking about".

Since they ARE IDENTICAL claims in both cases, but one is vastly larger in scope, should not the same standards of evaluation be applied?

If the case of my bowling ball "expanding without limit" is ridiculous, should the much bigger claim of our universe "expanding without limit" NOT BE even MORE ridiculous? Yet the world of science would mock the smaller one, and accept the larger one as a mystery, or a gift, from dark matter.

Should not science be consistent, especially on an increasing scale?

To further refine this point, back around 1930, when a minimal amount of energy was missing in the hydrogen fusion reaction, where 4 hydrogen atoms fused into 1 helium atom and two electrons [needing two neutrinos to make up the difference]. Invoking "Conservation of Energy", Wolfgang Pauli (thinking for science) demanded a "new particle", the neutrino, be invoked to account for that "missing energy".

Yet, when science has been confronted with an "overpayment" of energy, to keep our universe constantly expanding at an accelerating rate, "wink, wink", dark energy has been invoked to explain the result, rather than DEMANDING the common sense notion that: Maybe our universe is NOT EXPANDING, and NOT ACCELERATING in that expansion, but appears "AS-IS" for a good reason.  THAT is the approach that the C-R theory takes.

The REAL reason for increasing redshift with distance is: This universe IS NOT the same "out there" as it is, here on earth.  Rather, curvature changes matter there, and warps it, or "slows it down".  The further out we go, the more slowed-down matter gets, in EVERY direction.

The best way to demonstrate this is that there is ALSO one region of increasing blue-shift, called "The Great Attractor".  This COULD BE taken as "evidence" that we live inside a closed universe, and we ARE NOT at the center.

The real reason that there is not ANY imprint from concentrated masses on the 2.7 K background radiation, is that it is not at all related to a big bang, but is averaged-out background noise, more akin to the roar of a waterfall (but coming equally from all directions).

NOTE: The C-R theory has gone on record PREDICTING that the 2.7 K will not redshift over time, or cool down, but will remain constant over time.  Just check back in a couple billion years, and we should have a good answer. (I wish I could speed it up to get YOU the answer quicker.)

A second way to tell, go to another location in this universe, and the 2.7 K should change.  If you go closer to the "Great Attractor", the temperature will cool off, and go lower, but if you go further outside, towards the outer edges, the temperature of the background should get higher than 2.7 K.

The net irony was, when we felt cheated for a neutrino's worth of energy (plus some angular momentum), Conservation of Energy was called-upon.  When we (as a universe) were perceived to be "OVERPAID, energy-wise", to expand this universe, science was considerably MORE RELUCTANT to invoke that same CONSERVATION of ENERGY.

Instead of using everyday, common sense, they have embarked upon an unsuccessful (and fictional?) snipe-hunt (hunting earnestly for a non-existent item), looking for dark matter.

Along a similar path, in the similar hunt for dark matter, that mysterious missing mass needed to explain why galaxies hold together, science has again overlooked the real answer, the one which is so simple and straightforward, the answer that can be derived from simply LOOKING at the evidence already at hand.

What holds together those galaxy arms, keeping them circling-around the outside of the galaxy at nearly the same speed as in the inside of the galaxy? How about ELECTROMAGNETISM? It is simple, and it is easy.  All we need is for there to be more electrical current flowing within the interstellar medium, and for those magnetic fields to constrict, scrunch, pinch, and hold-together those stars.

In previous blogs, I have gone over some of the evidence that explains why the C-R theory EXPECTS there to be so much electrical current flowing within galaxies, and that is an excuse for the curious readers to read more of the C-R theory's earlier items.  I did advocate in an earlier blog, before looking for a mysterious new force, why not try to rule-out the already known process of magnetic fields.  After-all, the electrical force is some 10⁴⁰ times stronger than the gravitational force, on an atom by atom level.

Anyone doubting that there is sufficient electrical activity within a galaxy need look no further than our own solar system.  There is so much electrical activity, on so many vast scales, it should be difficult to miss (or to ignore).  Staying closer-in than Pluto, there are so many KNOWN electrical clues, like thunderstorms, lightning, aurorae, solar winds, and the like going-on, can anyone question whether magnetism is a viable candidate to replace dark mass?

Certainly, there is not enough mass in a galaxy to have gravity explain why it holds together.  However, electromagnetism can concentrate, guide, move, and explain why the outermost parts of the galaxy rotate at the same speed as the innermost parts. (Look at any fan-blade while it rotates, for example.)

Thanks for visiting the C-R theory, and checking out the blogs.  If you cannot accept all of my ideas, that's OK, just keep them in mind.  My goal is as much to get readers to think where to look, and what to look for.  If I can plant the seeds of C-R type logic, and show it's reasonableness, I do not mind losing the "battle" today to win the war sometime down the road.

If I can get the home-readers to consider these ideas, and really think about them, I believe I have accomplished something good.  It is only when these items become obvious, and people stop to really consider what is seen, that the C-R theory seems a better alternative.

I welcome any theory which can more logically, and more simply reconcile what is seen in this universe with what is believed to be going on.  I offer the C-R theory, for free, as a better alternative to the Big Bang, and a return to common sense ( and, energy accountability).