By the time this blog is posted, we may have had our 35,000^th recorded visitor to this web site.  Thank you to all who visit, and expecially to those who regularly return, to understand this theory better.

FOUND: The Reynold’s Layer, in our Milky-Way galaxy, and some nearby galaxies, too.

      I was reading an interesting article about what is currently known-about our Milky-Way galaxy, in the September, 2011 issue of Astronomy magazine.  In this article, by 3 authors, I found a mention, starting on page 30, that an astronomer, Ronald Reynolds, already knew about a 6,000 lightyear thick layer of ionized hydrogen gas that exists in our galaxy’s arms.  Ronald Reynolds detected this layer back in 1993, and since then, other nearby galaxies have also been measured as having very similar, ionized-gas-rich areas.

      The optical, ultraviolet emissions from the gas, in the Reynolds layer, places it around the 8,000 K temperature range, [other articles state from 4,000 to 10,000K] which is quite a bit warmer than the cold-dark vacuum that had been expected in a galaxy’s arms, in our earlier cosmology.  Further above this layer, much hotter ionized gasses, although more tenuous in their density and pressure, but in the million degree plus temperature range, are measured out from the galactic plane.

      What is even better, [for the C-R theory], when searching-out more information about that phenomenon, I ran into yet another article with an even nicer “gift” for the C-R theory.  It seems that, when measuring the arrival time of pulses from distant pulsars, the high energy photons arrived here, on earth, before the lower energy photons from the same pulses.  According to that article, the cause of that “pulse dispersion” was mentioned to be, that to cause that effect, those pulses must have travelled through AN ELECTRON RICH media.  (The emphasis added was mine, but the quote came from)

 see [ www.wtnnews.com/articles/577/ Check the end of the 7^th paragraph]

      That I know-of, no standard theory celebrates things like that, and only one theory that I am aware of, [the C-R theory], wants and needs claims of excess “free” electrons filling the space between the galaxies.  I included the link to that article above, and have interested home-readers note the last part of the paragraph beginning ..  “The photons or light particles that Reynolds was looking for...”

A GOOD WEEK of GENEROUS GIFT GIVING [all for the C-R theory’s enjoyment]

      Considering the article about the Reynold’s layer, and the article about pulsar pulse-dispersion indicating that those pulses had travelled through “an electron-rich media”, that was a pretty-good week of finding nature’s “gifts” to support the C-R theory ideas.  Note that both of these phenomena are not wanted by any standard theories, but both of these phenomena can-be embraced, cherished, and treasured by the C-R theory, as supporting evidence.

      Both phenomena were known-about long ago, but are “new and fresh” to the C-R theory’s author.  I consider two such “serendipitous” findings, in the same week, worthy

of mentioning as the lead section in this blog.  

      If they are thrown-in with aurorae and thunderstorms (with lightning) on every planet, and the new item, below, about Saturn and Enceladus, these are the types of electrically-related items which I cannot personally manufacture or conjure-up, but which keep “crawling-out-of-the-woodwork” {an expression of items found by accident, that were not looked-for deliberately}.  I suspect that these will not be the last related-items found, but represent “the tip of the iceberg” {the small but visible part of much-larger trove of hidden items, “submerged below the visible horizon”} when scientists consider the known evidence, as they determine: how this universe works.

[Electrical?] Current Events

or, Cooking your Moons with Electricity?

Pun: Ohm, Ohm on the (electric) range

      In going over some of my older magazines for this year, I came across a very interesting short article in the August 2011 issue of Astronomy magazine, on page # 17, that scientists have found yet another case of an electrical current between a large planet and it’s {ice}-volcano-spewing moon.  NASA’s Cassini spacecraft detected an electrical current between Saturn and Enceladus, by measuring an extra ultraviolet (light) peak in Saturn’s aurora, found near Saturn’s north pole, spreading-around, and covering an area as large as 1200 km. x 400 km. (or 750 miles x 250 miles).  The spot [added over the top of the normal aurora] with the extra glow always faces towards Enceladus, as it orbits around Saturn.  The short article (in Astronomy) mentioned this information came from Nature magazine’s article in their April 21 issue by lead author Wayne Pryor of Central Arizona College in Coolidge.

      The scientists had known about the huge current, varying cyclicly, flowing between Jupiter and Io, which can measure as high as 5,000,000 amps, as Io orbits nearer to Jupiter.  (and up to 400,000 volts have been measured across the face of Io) They looked for something similar, elsewhere, but did not notice anything until they detected this additional ultraviolet light-highlight phenomenon in Saturn’s auroral ring in it’s north pole.  I consider this very good news for the C-R theory, adding yet another very large, “known-about” electrical current, discovered within our solar system. (I did not see any mention estimating how large this current was, amperage-wise.)

      I have read elsewhere that in our earth’s aurora, it can have folded Birkeland currents, measured at up to 1,000,000 amps, but that article never specified if that was for each aurora (north pole and south pole) or both, simultaneously.  The important thing is that those millions of amps detected, in all of these diverse places, start to add up, and should make it increasingly difficult to deny that something electrical is going on, quite close-to-home, in our solar system.

      That I know-of, all planets (except for Pluto, which has been demoted recently) in our solar system have been detected with an active aurora, at times.  Even a few of the larger moons have been found to display an occasional aurora, too.  (As a guess, I will predict that Pluto will be found to have an aurora, too, once our planetary probe reaches it, later in this decade.  I think it was far-away enough that we did not have sufficient resolution to see it if it occurred.)

      The current issue of Astronomy magazine for September, 2011, has a very interesting article on what is known about our Milky Way galaxy, starting on page 26. On page 30, the article mentions the “Reynold’s Layer”, a thick layer of ionized gas, discovered in 1993 by Ronald Reynolds, measuring about 8,000 K.  Further outside this layer is a thin, hot layer of gas measuring over one million degrees Celsius, with energy probably coming from a wind emerging out-of our galaxy’s hot center.

      There is also a mention of our galaxy’s halo containing some electrically-neutral gas that might be involved in high velocity gas clouds, known-about, but not yet properly explained.  All these mentions are the type of phenomena that the C-R theory is looking-for, and trying to connect-the-dots-with.  

      Articles I found elsewhere also seem to indicate a dynamic (gas) wind away from the galaxy’s center, as well as vertical “chimneys” (or holes, cleared-out, hollow-bubbles, in the galaxy’s arm’s hydrogen gas), pockets spewing fountains of gas up (from the galactic plane) away from the center, and into the thinner upper layers. {There might also be a rain of cooler, condensed gasses, returning back, down into the galaxy, in yet another flow-pattern.}

      Maybe after I can try to point-out a few hundred items similar-to this type-of information, other’s will realize that there is something electrical going-on in our galaxy, and known-about, that mainstream science is not looking-for, or expecting to be there.

HINT, when “science” tries looking for something: Find What Already Is There, and do NOT go Looking-for Dark Matter [that Isn’t There]

      Then, instead-of “not finding dark energy and dark matter”, astronomers can start acknowledging the already known-about electrical currents and magnetic fields.  The galaxy-wide electromagnetic interactions, coupled-through these items might-well explain why our galaxy’s arms seem to hold-together just fine, and be driven-around, magnetically, (similar to a fan motor), without sufficient force-contributions from normal gravity, alone.  Just estimate-in the contributions possible from the KNOWN amounts of ionized gasses, magnetic fields, or extrapolate in what amounts the fields would need to be to hold our galaxy’s arms together, rotate them around the center, without shearing the arms, or tearing them apart, and also keep the stars inside the arms confined, grouped and constrained magnetically.

      Please remember that electricity is some 10⁴⁰ times stronger than gravity, on a local scale, so we don’t need nearly as much influence from it to replace the missing gravity.

Just a coincidence, or something more?

      Earlier, on August 23, we experienced a “small” earthquake here in Washington DC.  For safety reasons, we were told to evacuate from our building, even though no damage was done to our building.  The streets were jammed with people evacuated from other nearby buildings, and most of the people were sent home early.  While that, in itself is not “remarkable”, what makes that more interesting is that I had a very vivid and memorable dream, just the day before, in the morning, before I got out of bed, prominently featuring an earthquake.  It is extremely rare for me to have any-type of vivid and extraordinary dream, much less one of any kind occurring right before I awake.  I distinctly “remember” feeling the low-frequency shaking, and recognizing it as being from an earthquake, as a part of that dream.  I thought no more about it, after I woke up, other than, I normally almost-never remember specific items or details from my dreams, and by the time I arise, the details from any-of my dreams are long-faded away and forgotten-about, or hazy at best.

      In mentioning that dream to my webmaster, he did say that, if I dreamed vividly about “any specific lottery-winning numbers”, to please let him know, right away. [only half-jokingly, though] If there is a next-time for a vivid-dream, I may be more alert to possible implications.  I cannot dismiss it as sheer coincidence, but it is certainly not a regular occurrence, that was “lucky enough” to be “statistically” prescient.  After all, a stopped clock is still perfectly correct twice every day.

      That item above was not about the theory of the universe, but was fresh from the morning [as I was writing this paragraph].  I do not know if I somehow “got tapped-in to a celestial data stream”, but the nearness of both, within 30 hours of each other, seems unlikely to be a random coincidence.  Now on to more relevant topics.

      (This next part was originally the lead section of this blog, but I relegated it to second place, and now third place, in lieu of the new items I found which can probably explain how our galaxy works, without invoking any “help” from dark matter and dark energy.)

Living Inside a Comedy-Recycling theory “brand name” Closed Universe ^C-R

(and NOT a generic Closed Universe, as expected, conceived, and defined by our competition)

The basic properties of a Closed Universe ^C-R:

      A Closed Universe ^C-R contains EXACTLY enough matter to close-off spacetime at the outer edges (the outer Schwarzschild radius).

      NOTE: If the inner volume possessed any additional mass, it would have closed-off a little-bit sooner.  As it did not close off any earlier, it waited until it’s mass was totally sufficient, then closed-off.  Once it is closed-off, it becomes a complete package, and a self-sufficient system.

      NOTE: It is not a coincidence that a Closed Universe ^C-R contains exactly enough matter at exactly the right density to close it off.  IT IS a requirement!!! Once this universe closes off, it remains sealed forever (unless it is tampered-with, from the inside, by beings who do not-yet know any better).

      NOTE: Once this universe is “sealed”, or complete, this creates a condition immediately outside, [where the escape velocity is equal to or greater than the speed of light], which prevents entry from the outside.  This same total-bending also prevents any emissions from exiting from within, but continually re-directs and deflects potential emissions back inward.  HINT: Think of the ultimate goo, or sticky-trap. {See the Neutral Zone ^C-R, for further information on this region, and the third from next paragraph}

      Just like here on earth, as gravitational curvature increases (bending or warping spacetime, and ever-so-slightly increasing the pathlength light must travel), the real-time clocking rate slows down appropriately. [That IS WHY time slows-down, when the strength of gravity increases.  Light must travel that EXTRA amount that was added-into the total path.]

      There is a MINIMUM slowdown [or the MAXIMUM time-running-rate] which only occurs at the very center.  Then, with time decreasing progressively, until the outer edges are reached, that is where full curvature is attained.  At full curvature, the escape velocity equals the speed of light.  (Everywhere, at the outer edges, in all directions, the real time rate is ZERO, as “measured” by light)

Nature’s “Storage Closet?” or: Light Gone Loopy

 or: Light (says) : Now, I’m Ticked-OFF

      Any additional mass eaten, will be stored just outside this inner region, where the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.  Since photons of light cannot “travel” in this condition, (as they cannot travel at a speed above “c”), they are {unhappily} forced to “resonate in place” until the region’s escape velocity is decreased.  This effectively time-traps both light and matter, isolating and insulating them both, from ANY speed-of-light communication, interaction, knowledge, radiation, absorbtion, or emission, whatsoever.

HINT: Imagine a metronome in a parked position, where it cannot tick.

NOTE: The Second LAW of Thermodynamics CANNOT apply to this VOLUME of spacetime, as NO energy can escape or leak-away. {BANK on it!!}

CAN YOU REMAIN NEUTRAL, or WILL THIS NEW IDEA “TURN-YOU OFF”?

      Matter and energy so trapped act as if they were electrically neutral (even if they are electrically charged), and behave like they are oblivious to any other outside influences.  

      NOTE: This does make for an ideal storage-closet type of packing method.  Set it up, pack it in, and forget about it, for the time-being.  This is why the C-R theory has called this region The Neutral Zone ^C-R.  This brand-new feature is an exclusive innovation, unique to the C-R theory brand-name Black-Holes ^C-R.  Note that this condition can only be created after curvature causes the escape velocity to exceed the speed of light.

      Hence, nature must “pay-for” the entrance-ticket, “energy-mass-price”, by gathering a dense-enough mass to create a Black-Hole ^C-R.  There can be no singularity at the inside center, but the reward is to achieve an extremely useful new tool.  This NEW concept ONLY makes sense from a curvature-based gravity, and does not work, at all, if you are using a Newtonian (graviton-emission based force) type-of gravity.

      NOTE: Speed-of-light limited gravitons CANNOT pass through, or be emitted from a Neutral Zone ^C-R.  Neither can any “knowledge-of”: the inside electrical charge, the spin of the mass, or any electromagnetic energy pass through, as no “particles”, necessary for communication, can traverse-across this barrier, either.

      Second note: Curvature does pre-exist, and is maintained through the Neutral Zone ^C-R, but emits no speed-of-light based energy to do so.  Curvature is a metric-like property of spacetime itself, something more-akin to the slope of a mountain, which is caused by the varying-arrangement of the mass of the mountain, but does not change {rapidly or detectably} over real-time.  A mountain needs to emit no energy to maintain it’s slope, until the arrangement of the mass of the mountain changes.

      AUTHOR’S NOTE: For the record, I have NO IDEA WHY curvature does so, or what it’s “absolute” causative mechanism is, on a quantum-level.  I am understanding that this IS how it works, though, and that seems to produce a consistent result, and a real, useful difference in performance (of gravity).

ONLY by changing “How you think about a problem”, can YOU change “How YOU understand that problem, in a NEW way”.

      ONCE YOU can understand this difference, it easily becomes possible to sense the profound usefulness of a brand-name Black-Hole ^C-R, vs. a “generic-imposter” black hole.

SITUATIONAL AWARENESS: or,: Recycling a good answer, again.

      NOTE: I did not receive this new insight by studying the available “Newtonian” gravitational equations.  Instead, I kind-of assumed that nature would prevent any possibility of a singularity*, and then, the “curvature-based gravity” concept showed ME how it was done.  NOW I KNOW how gravity exists outside of a Black-Hole ^C-R, because gravity actually is ONLY caused LOCALLY, and is NOT POWERED from a distant source [coupling-through or across the Schwarzschild radius, as in, coming from inside a conventional black hole].

      *I recycled my understanding of “The Ultraviolet Catastrophe”, where nature originally avoided a singularity expected by scientists in the early 1900's, and figured nature also had a good way to prevent a singularity INSIDE a (generic) black hole, if I could recycle that lesson.  The “reward”, for pursuing that path was ultimately, the Comedy-Recycling Theory. {Plus, the Black-Hole ^C-R also recycles matter and energy, so recycling played at least a double role in my understanding.}

SEE OUR brand-name, or, C-R brand name:

 --{or: TAILS of WOE or: tales of Whoa}

      AUTHOR’S ADMISSION: I do not ENJOY typing and invoking the superscript fonts for the ^C-R tailed superscripts at the end of Black-Holes and Neutral Zones, but elected to do so, to show YOU, the home-readers, the uniqueness of the concept, and to differentiate the “brand-named” objects from their “inferior” counterparts.  That may make it more difficult to have the new C-R concept catch-on elsewhere, especially IN PRINT, as other writers are much less likely to carefully and deliberately type-in the appropriate “brand-name” {trademark-like} extra superscript tails.

      I probably could have re-named those “tailed” items to something more original, but the “generic-named” concepts were already known and loved-enough to make the “C-R” re-branding concept the lesser of two evils.

      Note: This “electrically-neutralized” packing method is an extra bonus, thrown in for free, from the Comedy-Recycling theory method of understanding this universe.  What is very interesting is how these very properties come together, and are used by nature to do something both surprising and very effective, and totally unforeseen by mainstream science.

The Sky’s the Limit, or “Disguise the Limit”; we cannot tell the difference.

      SAD NOTE: The “electrical-nature” of the Black-Hole ^C-R has been so well disguised by nature, that mainstream science has totally-missed noticing this concept, and still maintains that our universe, and almost all operations inside it, are electrically neutral. Despite numerous clues to the contrary*, the charge-disguise has actually been “too-effective”.

*[See the items I moved into the beginning of this blog, now at the top, and some earlier blogs, too]

      Another property of a closed universe is that matter anywhere inside IS NOT equivalent to matter elsewhere inside this type of universe, unless both masses are situated at identical radii away from the center.  Otherwise, the matter is worth less energy (or is more slowed-down) if it is further-out to the outer edges, or is worth more energy (less curved, or path-elongated), if it resides closer-in to the center, where it can “clock-faster” or appear blueshifted to other matter.

      NOTE: Such a “positional-energy-worth” vector-modulation effectively contains outlying matter, and keeps the outermost matter from collapsing inward, because it MUST acquire more energy to be allowed to move inward.  Unless matter can acquire that energy (which is expensive, time-wise), it may not proceed inward.

      [I apologize for understanding the process this way, but that IS how I think it works.]

      However, due to electrical charge imbalances, there is some flow-mixing of the matter, but this current-streaming is limited in it’s scope.  The limited circulation provides some “refreshing” of matter and energy, and does cause some noticeable overall flow currents.

      Some of these flow currents magnetically pinch and shove the magnetic-matter around in galaxy arms, causing the characteristic spiral shape, and holding the galaxy’s arms together.  Science has mistaken this effect for the influence of the “phantom” dark matter for which there is no real evidence.

      Science is looking for a non-existent force to replace a perfectly known-about electromagnetic-field-force, which is more than adequate to cause ALL of the galaxy-holding-together needed to explain what is actually seen.  The real causative mechanism is much more mundane, and far less exotic than is dreamed-of by most cosmologists.

      What a lucky break for the C-R theory that in addition to all of the other items it straightens-out, the theory also provides a very simple causative mechanism for sufficient electrical currents to be generated across all-of-the galaxies, universe-wide. The result is a far simpler-to-understand model of how this universe works, an easy agreement with more of the known observations, without needing major (and improbable) anomalies to explain them away.

      Because our universe has always existed, and always will continue to do so, it easily explains the lack of a mass-modulation effect on the background 2.7 K. This means that the clumped masses seen do not subtract from the background temperature, and superimpose an image-imprint on it. This also explains why every direction inside our universe appears to be so similar, temperature wise, because ALL-of it, in all directions, actually is at thermal equilibrium with everywhere else, and always has been.

      Additionally, the 2.7 K background radiation is not connected in any way to a big bang’s aftermath, but is more-like the roar of a waterfall, but coming uniformly from all directions.  It is more-like the averaged-out reflected [or redirected-around] “noise” of day to day operations in this universe.  As such, the 2.7 K will never redshift (or cool-down) over time, but will remain the same.

      If one could freely wander-about inside this universe, your “local” background temperature would warm-up, as you moved out, towards the outer edges, or cool off, if you could gain enough energy to be allowed in, towards the Great Attractor, as the traveller varied his/her position as they wandered.  This will become readily apparent within the next few billion years, as humanity develops the technology to travel-about and report back their findings, but it might not be as apparent, now, in a realtime, earthbound, single observation-location.

      NOTE: A billion lightyear change in your observation-location-position should easily confirm this, but that is not likely within the foreseeable future.

EXPAND YOUR KNOWLEDGE, but not the SIZE-of YOUR UNIVERSE

      Since our universe is not expanding at an expanding rate, no driving (dark) energy source is needed, and conservation of energy will once-again be respected instead of continually violated.

      Since the Big Bang is no longer needed, neither is the ridiculous hyperinflation also needed to explain the overall smoothness of the contents of this universe.

      It should be considered “ironic” that as far back as scientists think they have discovered objects from the early stages of this universe, the “baby pictures” all seem to reveal full-grown adults, far more mature than the short time alotted-by the Big Bang theory can accommodate.

{A Scientific Hint:}   IF YOU WANT TO GET A “CORRECT” IDEA, DO NOT FIRST CORRECT {or re-write} YOUR OBSERVED DATA (by actually corrupting it), TO WHAT YOU THINK IS RIGHT!!!

            or: (re)-WRITING a WRONG:

      While the increasing redshift of objects seen does indicate an increasing distance-away, almost ALL of the distant objects seen are actually “observed” at their true “real-time-rate”.  When scientists “fix” their data to correct the time-frame for the “assumed” Doppler-shift, they are actually corrupting, [spoiling], their true data, [which is gravitationally redshifted], and introducing-in {writing} the very-wrong items that make them think this universe is expanding at an expanding rate.

      Any decent professor should tell their youngest students NEVER to correct their data BEFORE they draw their conclusions from it. {Shame, Shame, Shame} To fool the whole world by doing just that has bolluxed-up the entire world’s thinking, and ruined their understanding about the true nature of this universe since 1929-1930.

      Maybe the simplest way to understand this universe is TO CHANGE the theory they use to understand it with.  Fortunately, you have come to the only site where such an easy fix is possible. {I do wish there were far more of them.}

      The universe described by the C-R theory is far easier to understand, from a human-based viewpoint, than any of the competition can match.  First of all, almost all observations are straightforward, simple, and need no correction or interpretation to evaluate.

      Our universe is a fixed size, not expanding, and definitely, not expanding at an expanding rate.  It is perfectly stable, yet dynamically interactive-enough to allow some mixing of the internal contents to keep things fresh and interesting.

      Inside a closed universe, there is a 100% probability of finding EXACTLY enough matter at exactly the right density to close-off that universe, otherwise it would not be closed-off.  NOTE: If our closed universe was larger, it would have had more matter at a lesser density.  If our closed universe had been smaller, it would have had less matter at a higher density.

      Since we see an increasing amount of redshift in all directions, something must be causing that.  In our universe’s case, it is the gravitational curvature (or increasing bending of the time-frame of spacetime) which “stretches-out” spacetime, and requires light “there” to travel a longer (or stretched-out) distance to cover the same real distance, which, in effect, slows down time. [HINT: Think of blowing-up a balloon, and taking longer to travel the same balloon’s surface area as it’s surface expands.  It is the SAME balloon, but the trip across it’s surface takes longer when it is inflated.) As light travels in more-curved space, it appears to slow-down.

      We get exactly the same effect here, on earth, when an atomic clock is lowered into a more intense gravitational field, but on a far-wimpier, minuscule scale.  Whereas we lose time by about 1 part in 10^-16th, here on earth, for every meter’s difference in elevation (down), nearer the outermost edges of this universe, the time-loss effect is measured in a percentage of real time-slowdown nearer to 80-90% in distant galaxies and quasars.  HINT: By this mode of thinking, the 2.7 K background radiation is the reflected, averaged-out, slowed-down remnant of light (bent back around, sent to us again, rather than emitted-out from this universe).  

      The 2.7 K is NOT in any-way related-to the cooled-down Big Bang leftovers, because the Big Bang never occurred.  Therefore, no remnant of the explosion is needed.  The 2.7K thus does not prove the Big Bang at all.

      The easiest way to check to see that this is so is to also look, simultaneously, for one, and only one inner region, where matter appears to be blueshifted to us, because matter (and energy) there is running faster than here, on earth.

      By some (non-amazing) “coincidence”, we do see just that, too.  In every study I am aware-of, enough mass has never been found at The Great Attractor to suck our mass, from here on earth, to rush-in towards that region, from that great of a distance-away. A far simpler answer is that both the redshifts, and the blue shift are BOTH caused by non-linear time-rates, and simple positional differences.

      (Incidentally, matter on the other side of the Great Attractor is also not seen to be rushing inward at a similar rate as from earth, as might be expected if The Great Attractor was actually ATTRACTING anything.)

      My argument is: If increasing nearness to the earth’s mass slows-down time, here on earth, is it not reasonable that, for a [gravitationally] totally closed universe, time rates should also vary, internally, BY LOCATION? Is it not unreasonable to claim that mass here, on earth, does so, but the entire collective mass of our universe DOES NOT?

      I would humbly maintain that it is far easier to FIX our understanding of this universe, than to accept ALL of the ridiculous anomalies associated with the Big Bang, collectively.  I cannot help but gloat smilingly when I think of how easy it is to do away with all of the unreasonableness of the Big Bang’s necessary corrections to make it work-out.

      The principle of Occams’ razor states that, the theory with the most reasonable, and fewest assumptions, is most likely to be correct.  I welcome any home-reader to stack up the simple points, and the unreasonable points, between the C-R theory, and the Big Bang, and judge for yourself where the most unreasonable points lie.  Let us place a possible guide below, and ask you to use your intuition about which alternatives sound most sensible, and implausible, by YOUR standards of reasoning.

{Place chart here, after I’ve created it}

      Many thanks for visiting.  I hope you can understand my concerns, and start to understand the C-R theory and see why it really makes the most sense out of the observations, without any necessary corrections.  These ideas are too new, and too far from what conventional theory understands.  I do not expect anyone to warm-up to these ideas upon your first encounter.  Expect to need multiple re-visits, and extended re-thinking time, before you can accept these simple new changes.

      I encourage any first time visitors to slowly re-consider what you now believe, and welcome your skepticism.  Feel free to personally research any of the points I bring-up, and use the many illustrations and drawings on the side column to fill-in your understanding.

      Please use your innate, common sense, and ask yourself if the C-R theory point-of-view is not simpler to understand, if you can accept the arguments.  Please test these ideas whenever possible, against every new discovery, and/or, re-read modern articles, and note every mention of electrical current, magnetic fields, roving gas-clouds, polarized light, high-energy cosmic rays, and weigh their presence as compared to the non-discovery of dark energy and dark matter.

      If it is nonsense that a small, bowling ball-like object, would be constantly expanding, accelerating it’s acceleration outward, and increasing it’s mass daily, without the slightest trace of an energy source, should it not be “increasingly improbable” nonsense when those very same properties are applied to our everyday universe, and accepted with a straight faced sincerity?

      If science is not consistent in it’s applications, is it worthwhile? HINT: If you accept the C-R theory, it still is.  Perhaps if science did not so obviously mis-judge the age, origin, and time-varying-nature of our universe, it could be restored to a more “fully-respected” mode by the general public.

      PREVIEW: I hope to tackle some of the nonsense of the Multi-verse in the next blog, unless something more-interesting comes up before then.

      Jerry Reynard, September 5th, 2011

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