Another Fantastic “gift” for the C-R Theory, from NASA

[an item about the Lunar ionosphere], but first:

      Welcome to our 40,000^th visitor to the home page, and still counting.  Many more have visited the other parts of this web-site, too, without always visiting the home page. I hope you all find what you are looking-for, right here, at the C-R theories.

      I was recently looking over a review of last year’s findings (for 2011), and noticed an item that only the C-R theory could appreciate, and welcome “with open arms”. Apparently, some scientists have known about this for many years, but the item was news to me, [although not as surprising as others have felt at this news].

      NASA just announced a new theory from one of their scientists about why the lunar ionosphere exists. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/14nov_lunarionosphere/ While the C-R theory does not necessarily agree with this new theory, it is gratified to see mention that some scientists have apparently known for years that there was an ionosphere on the moon.  Another article, I will link to http://www.isas.ac.jp/publications/report/678/67803.html also mentioned that this lunar ionosphere existed some 10's of km. above the moon’s surface.  It also mentioned that from 500, up to 1000 extra electrons, per cc [or cm³] surround positively charged particles of moondust.  (If one does the math, for the large number of potential cc’s and km’s involved, there should be alot-of-em.)

      Elsewhere, an article stated that the Soviet Luna 19 and 22 missions also detected this lunar ionosphere, back when they were operating.

      I also found an article about similarities to Mars’ ionosphere.  At least Mars had a thin atmosphere to support the zone with electrons.  This indicates that the ionosphere is not just a “local” problem with the moon, but has something in common with other planets, too.

      Since the moon is not supposed to have any (significant) atmosphere at all, the scientists were surprised that our moon still had a discernable ionosphere.  One of the articles promised science would provide more updates within the next 40 years.

      While this news that there was an ionosphere on the moon is “tolerated” by some theories, I would say that only the C-R theories would “warmly welcome this phenomenon into the pro-C-R theories family”.

      I know of no other theory which has advocated as strongly for any evidence supporting the presence of excess electrons as publicly as the C-R theory.  While this does not necessarily “prove” the C-R theory’s ideas are right, it is a nice bit of supporting phenomenon that no other theory “wants, needs, or appreciates”.

      While I’m sure NASA did not have the C-R theory in mind when announcing this lunar ionosphere, I tend to regard it “as a gift” to only the C-R theory, and kind-of “an annoying pest”, to every other theory.

      The article announced that one of their scientists had a new theory to explain some of the lunar ionosphere’s properties, by having moondust ionized by ultraviolet light, then eventually lodging in the ionosphere.  It was thought that the dust would explain some atmospheric glow-like phenomena noticed by the original astronauts. That theory did not provide a good explanation for the electrons, however, which is where the C-R theory might be helpful.

      While I have not yet seen anything stating the total estimated quantity of electrons involved, it probably is less than the “up-to 5 million amperes (each second)” of flux-tube currents flowing between Jupiter and Io.  With known auroras on most planets and even on some moons with atmospheres in the solar system, science should find a harder time denying that there is “something electrical” going-on just about everywhere we look, nearby.  Lightning and thunderstorms also feature prominently in planet’s weather systems.

      Just last year, a planet-circling storm on Saturn showed a persistence and a fierceness unseen before.  The March 2012 Astronomy magazine mentions on page #19, that the storm enveloped over 2 billion square miles, or over 5 billion square kilometers in Saturn’s northern hemisphere.  NASA’s Cassini spacecraft provided the details.

      Since the energy that Saturn gets from the sun’s light is considerably weaker than on Earth, due to the increased distance, could an abundance of electrons be part of the cause of the violent thunderstorms?

      Another item of interest last year was the discovery of at least 6 “Y” class white-dwarf stars, with some having surface temperatures of “a balmy 80° F”.  If space itself was not so hostile, one could *almost place your lawn chair on the surface, and be comfortable. [*Readers, please do not attempt to do so, outer space is still too dangerous for recreational suntan purposes, much less white-dwarf surfaces.]

      I would venture to say that those tepid temperatures would tend to minimize any possible energy contribution by ongoing fusion reactions as the ultimate temperature source.

      In a similar vein, a new star was seen to have spiral arms.  While many galaxies were known featuring spiral arms, this was the first known individual star to have such a feature clearly displayed.  Here again, I would like to point out that such a feature seems much less possible for a fusion-powered star, where gravity must first gather enough hydrogen gas to the center, (to get the fusion started), than for some other potential energy producing method, [like: Black-Hole ^C-R powered], not needing a critical mass to be gathered-up to initiate fusion.

      It is possible that greater insights might be gained in the planetary-generating process, if further pictures of stars like this become available for study.  Time-sequence shots will likely prove quite beneficial, too, for information about planet-building.

      Yet another recent item was from the Voyager satellites, now exiting the sun’s protective bubble, (the heliopause) and encountering the raw magnetic fields thought to be present in true interstellar space.  These have been more varied, and more turbulent, than were expected. http://www.space.com/13824-nasa-voyager-spacecraft-interstellar-space.html

For 2012:

      My overall goal in the C-R theory is to show visitors some new items, and have them reconsider how science understands several key phenomena, especially Black-Holes ^C-R , gravity, and our entire universe.  I do apologize that I could not simply use all of the pre-existing concepts, and then build upon them, but had to (very) reluctantly discard some (way too many, in the expert’s opinions), to make-for a better overall fit.

      If you start out disagreeing with all, or many of the ideas here, that is expected.  If it takes you several visits to warm-up to these new ideas, and start to understand why they simply work better, and give a more human-friendly path to your reasoning, using new concepts not available anywhere else, that is expected, too.

      I can easily sympathize with those who cannot accept these new ideas, as I came from their perspective originally.  In my case, an original line of new reasoning led me down a different path, and I was able to gain new insight (for me, at least), and I believe that I now understand what I could not realize back then.  That is why I can empathize with those who have not accepted these ideas, as I can understand your perplexity; but I also think I found a new and better way to understand what you are actually looking-for, even if you do not know it, yet.

      I would urge you to temporarily accept these ideas, for argument’s sake, (without rejecting them first), then take them out for a test drive, get the feel of their power, and evaluate them after a brief trial period.  If you do not accept these ideas, they will remain as “foolishness” to you.  If you insist on holding-on to a list of Newtonian views, you WILL certainly reject the newer ones.  I try to treat you incoming readers more-as pre-realizers, rather than condemn you (by the C-R theory’s standards) as unworthy.

      If I did not feel that I gained true, unique, and useful insights from them, I would have left you alone, and kept these thoughts to myself, for my own use.  I am excited by yet another opportunity to share these ideas in this continuing series of blogs.  What I think I know (now), is what I never even suspected, before I adopted the C-R theory as my own.  If I can convey to you some of the concepts that I think I have found-out, and I am not just inventing something fake, to lead you astray, then I might help some-of-you to understand, or at least, start-to-consider a new pathway to understand the problems, and a new solution, to gravity.  The C-R theory also uses new approaches to radically change [and ultimately, simplify] how you “see” our universe.

      Let me say, I never anticipated that I might gain insights that have eluded others, and I cannot rule-out some special “help from above”, but I cannot prove it, either.  I can state that I now have a reasonable degree of confidence I have significant understandings that you will never independently discover.  This is less due to “my brilliance”, than to the haphazard and convoluted steps that it took, {or that nature led me thru}, which are quite unlikely to ever be repeated independently.

      See for yourselves if the C-R theory ideas are not simpler, and more direct to understand, and more fulfilling than the competition.  If it takes you 5 to 10 years to switch sides, it will be worth it.  If you cannot accept it, maybe I can still provide you with new ways to look at other old ideas.

      If C-R’s critics say, but science is not supposed to be like this, I would heartily agree.  BUT, since I have these answers now, I am not throwing them back into an abyss, to try my “luck” again.  If I cannot fire-up your sense of curiosity, and pique your interest here, let me encourage you to try again (for something better?), elsewhere.  If you will not try-to accept some new concepts, you simply will fail to make the required connections.  If you will let me, I will try to impart to you, (with considerably less grief than it initially took me), a new set of pathways.

      If you can accept my sense of humor, please enjoy the Comedy-Recycling theory. If you are from another country, and do not fully understand the potential comic twists and puns and potential that the English language is capable of, please use the Completely-Recycling theory to review my ideas.

      Thank you for visiting, and stopping by.

      If you have questions, or have topics you would like me to discuss (C-R Theory related ones, mostly), please feel free to write in.  You can click on the Contact the Author banner on the top of the homepage.

      P.S., we may soon start a discussion topic corner (or board) where home readers can post topics for discussion, or join-in.

      I have just renewed my web-hosting arrangement for this site, and I have upgraded to a higher level of service, greater on-site storage capacity, and the newest-available web-server potential methods for you to download the information stored here.  If I can get busy, and create new items, I would like to feature more training materials, too.

      It is also possible that we might have a link-to recommendation site, where home readers can link to interesting sites which have some relevance to the C-R theory related items, pro or con, or do a particularly good job of explaining a topic.

      I would like to spend some time this year, going over many of the basic items where the C-R theory has differences from almost all of the conventional sources.  Since there are no other places where you home readers can obtain these details, I try hard to re-explain them in new manners, hoping that each time I do, more readers can catch on to the truely vast scope of the changes needed, and to try again to explain just how different the C-R theory is.

      When I understood just where science probably went wrong (although they do not know it yet), there were specific areas where the C-R theory needed to change.  They are not random, capricious or arbitrary, but were mandated by the new realizations of how nature might work.  I can state that I had no agenda at the start, before I ever had this theory.  I never set-out to write any theory, either.  I simply wanted to know how nature worked.

      I had always assumed that I might walk down the aisles of a library, and find an obscure book from years-ago, that no-one had ever heard of (or that modern science had forgotten about) from long-ago, and I would find an answer that made sense to me, and would explain something, or give me good insight into the modern world.

      Writing a new theory was the last thing I had ever intended to do.  It never occurred to me that I might “stumble over” a simple, NEW idea, that would lead me into a whole-new way of thinking about how Black-Holes ^C-R work.  Even then, it was quite a while before I intended to write something major* about this new way of thinking. (*I did typewrite about 10 pages on the new ideas shortly after my first insights, to share with friends, in 1979.  I had no good way, back then to make those ideas public.)

      It was probably 5 years after my initial thoughts, when I first realized that I would need a NEW way to describe a Black-Hole ^C-R, or to specify something different-enough about one (but without trying to come-up with a totally new name for one).  I ultimately decided to add the superscripted, hyphenated ^C-R after a capitalized, hyphenated Black-Hole, something like a “trademarked” item with a ^tm superscript afterward, but without the “financial” exclusivity.  Even though the term is ALMOST the same (as a black hole), it is intended to describe a specific item, with very real differences.

      If I can ever “train” the world into recognizing the differences, and to start-to appreciate the real benefits of using the C-R theory’s pathway [or now: theories’ pathways, for both versions], this term still is “comfortable-enough” to sound the same, like something we are already familiar-with.  It is not that I enjoy taking the effort into adding the superscripted ^C-R, every time, but I need to show there is such a difference that must be noticed (and acknowledged) differently.  In retrospect, it may not have helped me very much with the search engines, which throw away or ignore the superscripting, but it should help most of the home-readers to start to recognize there is a new concept that has not yet been accepted (much less, even considered), by science.

      HISTORICAL NOTE: Before 2005, I added the superscripted ^C-R without the space between (as in: Black-Hole^C-R), but I think that ruined many chances for the search engines back then “to find the imbedded term, black hole”.  The main search engines also ignore the significance of the dashes (or minuses).

 

      Although I do thank the many search-engines for bringing in a majority of the first-time people who find the C-R theory, (as compared to those who hear about it directly from a friend, or from passed-out business cards, or limited advertising), I do wish I could get them to consider the dashes and superscripts in the text (especially in MY TEXTS), are AS IMPORTANT AS the “regular text”.

      I would be open to reader’s suggestions as to better options, or a more “search-engine friendly” way to get the point across.  I have been using this method since at least 2005, and visually, I am very happy with the result I SEE that something important is being offered, that STANDS OUT from the crowd.

 

      I would also welcome reader’s assistance in finding new links to known phenomena that would help to support (or even refute) any of the C-R theory’s ideas, especially if those sites are not written in English.  If your home country has articles relevant to the C-R theory’s expectations of phenomena of excess electrical currents, magnetic fields, positive ionizations of supernovae, which you come across, I would appreciate your letting me know about it.

      This is where I could ask those readers who DO find the C-R theory ideas interesting, or at least, discussion-worthy, to recommend it to your friends.  As a joke, I also recommend, if you hate the C-R theory, please recommend it to your enemies. Either way, we could use the publicity.

      Part of my goal is to get a good dialog started, and really have science reconsider what they so easily accepted, almost without questioning it, some 90 years ago.  I am trying to make it easy for you, by showing you what to look-at, where to look, what to notice, and WHAT WAS MISSED.  If my arguments are invalid, or just stupid, they will not hold up.

      If I were merely fibbing, falsifying, or fabricating great claims, I would not have picked excess electrons coming from Black-Holes ^C-R as a likely item for home readers to gullibly fall for.  I picked that idea only because it fit-in so well, and suggested a likely new use for matter that science would never suspect.  I felt compelled-enough to demand that this phenomena is real.  This either happens, or it does not.  The C-R theory’s usefulness depends heavily whether this phenomenon really exists, and can be found in nature.

      If the phenomena of excess electrons ejected from every Black-Hole ^C-R is not there, and therefore: cannot be found, the C-R theory IS wrong.  The last 30 years of discoveries have been kinder to the C-R theory, than should be the case if it is wrong.

      Again, my thanks to all of the 40,000 plus visitors to the home page, and other visitors to more specific portions of the C-R theory.  If this material helps YOU understand what is seen in this universe any better, or helps you chose another (even better?) option, I am glad I could help.  Even if you were merely entertained, I hope I could shed some new light on what you learn, and help to create a hunger for more knowledge.  If I can show you some of what is already known-about, we ALL gain from that.

      Much of what we might need to understand this universe may already be at hand, if we can just make the proper connections as to how “what we see” fits together.  If I can contribute to your puzzle-solving abilities, and you can contribute to mine, the world may be yet better off.

Jerry Reynard Feb. 6^th, 2012

 

Blog for the year-end of December, 2011

Part 2 of the blog, about Bob Berman’s 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos, plus more

 

      We just recorded our 38,000^th visitor the other week, and I would like to thank all of those who have come by to visit.  We also had a record week for visitors and bandwidth served, which means that at least some people are visiting and showing an interest in this site.

      I’ve been having meetings with my webmaster to discuss positive changes to this site, to try to improve your options at how information is presented, and to give a wider variety of options and looks to first time visitors.  We will try to start to incorporate some of those enhancements in the very near future, probably in 2012.

      Thanks to all who return regularly to these blogs, and welcome to all first timers.  I try to help readers appreciate the C-R theory’s insights which mainstream science does not understand, look-for, or want.

      I left off in the last blog without listing more of the 50 weirdest objects, as I was running out of time, but wanted to get that blog out.  I believe that the C-R theory uniquely can help readers understand some aspects of what we really see, and what is reported.  Astronomers and physicists are reluctant to consider “amateur” points-of-view, and they stick quite firmly to what they were taught.  Usually, that serves them well, unless what they were taught was wrong from the start.

      For the home-reader, this gives you the opportunity to consider these new ideas before the “insiders”, the full time professional astronomers and cosmologists, will even consent to look at these ideas.  There is such a “bias” in the academic community against revolutionary new ideas [especially when one needs as many of them simultaneously as the C-R theory needs], many will not even look at new ideas until they have been vetted by their peers, who all hold the same prejudices, and have been trained the same way.

      I wish that this situation were not so, and I have tried to offer the C-R theory in good faith, but the gap between world-wide-acceptance, and the innovations required is too large for the time this theory has been around (over 30 years, and on-line for at least 15 years). [My suspicion is that the C-R theory needs 2-3 generations to pass-by until a sufficient amount of new understanding can be presented in a way that can be accepted.]

      Part of that is my lack of persuasiveness, but most lies in the amount of old stuff that must be overthrown before the “new understanding” can take place.  Very soon, I will attempt to make simpler, and more direct claims, and break-down some of the C-R theory ideas into smaller packages, with more distinct new sub-sections.

      As always, please feel free to write in with any questions you might have.  I expect there are many of you who would like to do so, but very few actually do write in.  I also apologize that this web-site here is the only place on the entire web promoting these new ideas, except for a few sites re-posting some of my earlier work from the older GeoCities web site. (Those sites miss my later revisions, and newer phenomenon which was unknown to me at that time.)

      I try to show that the C-R theory ideas offer new lines of “causation” which are not known, and have NEVER been considered.  This is mostly because the textbooks ALL say that “it does not happen like the C-R theory says.”

      I will also ask myself, is this new theory reasonable? I constantly “think” I am finding new items in the news which help to support the C-R theory, and illustrate the ideas in the real world results.  I would like to let the readers look at these items, and test for themselves to see whether it sounds as reasonable to them.

      I will resume this blog with item #25 on Bob Berman’s list, M87, a massive agglomeration of galaxies or globular clusters, including the largest Black-Hole ^C-R, some 6 billion solar masses, known to science**. [As I wrote this part, just this week, scientists have found new, even bigger Black-Holes ^C-R, of at least 10 billion solar masses.] {**NOTE also: The C-R theory maintains that our entire universe is the inside portion of a vastly larger Black-Hole ^C-R, having the mass (inside) of our entire universe, but science has not accepted, much less, embraced that idea, yet.}

      Of course, the C-R theory also believes that the Black-Hole ^C-R there is a “standard” Black-Hole ^C-R.  This means that the massive jets shooting out from the central mass have unseen filaments that extend for 100,000 light years.  The article mentions that the deep blue color of the beam indicates synchrotron radiation, produced by electrons, twisted-about in intense magnetic fields.  One should note that ONLY an abundance of loose, highly energetic electrons, could combine their individual magnetic fields to provide almost exactly what is described in this article.

      I think it is safe to say {from this article}, mainstream science has not got a clue as to why these jets occur.  These jets certainly could seem to me to suggest enormous quantities of high-energy electrons.  Should I hazard a “guess” that those jets are not “uncaused”? That I know-of, only the C-R theory claims that enormous quantities of electrons are freed-up, stripped-off or peeled-away from every consumed nucleus, for every atom eaten.

      While I do accept that “by-the-book” this process does not go on {in their books opinion}, is it really that unreasonable? For example: whenever I eat an orange [or a banana, or peanuts in the shell], I peel it first before I eat it.  If one found however many orange peels in my vicinity, would it not be more probable evidence supporting my diet, rather than the claim that the peels appeared from some other {antimatter?} universe?

      I know that “science-experts” strongly disagree with this electron-stripping idea, as they are taught that any knowledge of the internal electrical charge cannot be hidden, and they simply do not question that idea.  I would politely remind home-readers that not one of them has ever successfully entered either a (generic) black hole or a Black-Hole ^C-R and tested that assumption from the inside.  I would simply ask the home-reader to “try out this idea” as a test, without first rejecting it.

      What I am attempting to do is provide a reasonable, new hypothesis to suggest why this “known” situation occurs.  If I can get you to understand this simple mechanism, you might understand how our universe “exploits” this situation, in a way never before considered.  HINT: The universe either does this, or it does not.  But, if IT DOES do this, then we have an “unreasonable” situation, reasonably explained.

      Even if you DO NOT believe the C-R theory, please check out the existing scientific literature and LOOK FOR known situations that resemble what I have described.

      {GUIDE: Look for: Large numbers of high-energy electrons, enormous magnetic fields, causes of continuing “local” expansion that do not “cool-off”, or cease, as the expansion continues, and high-speed jets “of something” leaving the Black-Hole’s ^C-R vicinity at speeds of at least 99.99% of lightspeed.}

      NOTE: The way that the Black-Hole ^C-R accumulated positive charge stores-up, or packs-in immediately inside of the Schwarzschild radius.  This volume (or region) IS THE ONLY PLACE IN THIS UNIVERSE where “the ESCAPE VELOCITY is GREATER-THAN the SPEED-of-LIGHT”.  This “internal condition” IS what prevents the knowledge-of the positive charges from being communicated-out.  Because any electromagnetic energy [as particles or waves, or combinations] cannot travel above light-speed, [as speeds above lightspeed WOULD be required to escape], this charge-quantity-information is insulated and isolated inside, but NEVER lost.

SUPPOSITION: If YOU {and most of science} believe something, without PROOF, and ALMOST EVERYONE accepts it, THAT does not MAKE IT true!!! [Just - believed]

DEMONSTRATION:

      Let me make a key point here.  Mainstream science believes that, after starting-off, out-of a singularity, when temperatures were around 10⁹⁶ degrees, all of the 4 forces [gravity, electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force], started-off as equal strength, and they were all derived from the same-type of starting source, but as the temperature from the initial big bang lowered, the individual forces broke-off and “froze-out”, and became clearly distinct and different.

      Where the C-R theory has a clear difference is that the C-R theory now expects gravity and electromagnetism each use totally different propagation-styles (even though they are similar, and both act as inverse-square forces), and they behave differently across the Schwarzschild radius (or the event horizon) because their active causal mechanism is quite different.

      STRONG HINT: This condition at the outside of the Black-Hole ^C-R is not random or accidental, and the uses will be revealed elsewhere within the C-R theory.

      NOTE 2: Since this portion of the Black-Hole ^C-R can only accumulate more matter and energy, [BECAUSE nothing from the inside can escape or radiate-out], it stores-up THE ONLY KNOWN FORCE, in this universe, that can overcome gravity, when it is allowed to do so. [Positive charges, or an accumulation of protons and proton-neutrons]

      NOTE 3: This Neutral Zone ^C-R, something like a physics-lawless region of piggy-bank crossed with a storage closet, holds the real secret of the Black-Hole ^C-R in operation, and it’s intended role.  HINT: Something akin to an overfilled, steaming teacup’s saucer plate, a sufficient BUMP might sometimes release some (maybe even ALL) of the trapped contents.

      NOTE 4: If this region’s accumulation is sufficiently twisted or bent, once the neutralized protons and neutrons are re-freed-up, creating an explosive, energy liberation on a scale only exceeded by direct, matter-antimatter annihilation, releases positive charges which repel-away everything they encounter on a scale 40 magnitudes [powers of ten] larger than the gravitational attraction, until the charges are re-neutralized.

      NOTE 5: These released positive charges then explode violently, to create the enormous, expanding balls of glowing energy, which are so evident in many of the Hubble’s most spectacular photographs.  These released charges also continue to forcefully expand and glow (radiate energy) long after a fusion-generated temperature should have cooled-off.

      Since the entire energy-release, process-cycle described above is not expected (or even ALLOWED) from the standard view, every occurrence is either misattributed to runaway fusion, or dismissed, or else credited to dark matter’s mysterious effects.

      Item 23, Eta Carinae (and the Homunculus Nebula around it) is one of the most interesting stars known.  In 1677, Edmund Halley listed it as 4^th magnitude.  In the early 1700s, it was one of the brightest stars in the lesser-known constellation of Carina (the keel). It then dimmed again, until about 1820.  It then brightened until, at one point, in April 1843, it was the second brightest star in the sky.  Afterwards, it again dimmed considerably.

      I believe one of the Electric Universe web-sites claimed this star, Eta Carinae, was a “poster child”, [or the best-known stellar example] against the Herzsprung-Russell diagram, the standard-guide-chart that is believed to represent the normal development-path that stars are “supposed to follow”, over their lifetimes of millions to billions of years.  

      The interested reader may note that this star has gone through several of those phases, brightening and dimming over decades, during a relatively short observation period, compared to multi-million-year star-lifetimes, may demonstrate that “this bad star has not read our physics books” to “know-how” to behave normally, as astronomers expect.

      {Science now considers this star as a Wolf-Rayette type-of star, or as a false-supernova.  It is supposed to go into a supernova sometime within the next 100,000 years.  The long-period variability of this star, where it repeatedly dims and brightens over magnitudes, does not play-well with a “standard-textbook understanding” of how the fusion-based process in a star should unfold.  It may well fit-in better to a small-Black-Hole ^C-R powered model, where the star’s power output could vary wildly, based upon it’s gravitational diet, yet also periodically, over a shorter scale of a few years or decades, instead of millions or billions of years.}

      The central star is now believed to be part of a binary pair, placed inside an obscuring, but expanding nebula called the homunculus nebula, but which resembles a short barbell, or a peanut-shell-like shape of two glowing-globes of roiling-expansion at opposite ends of a central volume shaped something like the handle of a barbell {a handheld, one-hand, cast-iron training weight}.  

      The very peculiar shape of the released energy seems quite incompatible with any fusion-based process, (which is very unlikely to easily split-in-two), inside a star.  The confined charge-region, on the outside of the sphere could possibly work if two near-simultaneous charged-particle releases occurred at opposite ends of a Neutral Zone ^C-R.

      NOTE: I have blogged about this particular star, and the 3 other “rebel ones” before, but this magazine article gave me an excuse to re-visit this particular one.

      The next item to discuss is number 22 on Bob’s list, The Cat’s Eye Nebula, or NCG 6543, and it also provides the spectacular cover illustration for this special issue.  The glowing shells and colorful bubbles in this nebula are vaguely similar to the previous nebula, but this one looks like it has been around longer.  There seem to be older, regular-release-interval shells of matter, released maybe a few thousand years ago, with younger, energy-bubbles inside, twisted and skewed around even more energy-bubbles, all stuffed inside these large, hollowed-out [expanding] shells.

      According to the article, the central star inside is around 150,000° F or 80,000° C. It is also giving off a stellar wind at 20 tons of it’s mass, lost per second.  High energy X-rays are emitted, even though the star’s surface-temperature is way too cool to generate them.  

      I would propose that the release of the X-rays comes from the left-over electrons shed by a central Black-Hole ^C-R in that vicinity, while the high-energy “proton-shells”, find a way to escape from a central Neutral Zone ^C-R, [where they were stored], on a semi-regular (100-1000 year) recurring basis.  [NOTE: the Neutral Zone ^C-R itself may not be disturbed violently-enough to totally free all of the trapped contents] This scenario might be a more perfect-fit to release, energize, and drive-out the expanding, glowing-shells, then produce yet more energy-release phenomenon inside at some later time.  

      NOTE: The released “proton-shells” do not cool-off as they expand, because the expansion is not (initial) temperature-driven, but is “positive-mutual-repulsion driven”. The sum of the combined actions there could then account-for what is actually seen, if a C-R theory-like scenario is occurring.

 

      The next two numerical items are also featured on the same page, item number 21 being the V381 Nor, the last of the microquasars.  The C-R theory maintains that quasars are only another part-of the (total lifetime) phase in the complete ecological-cycle of matter-energy-recycling, using Black-Holes ^C-R.  The phenomenon is similar to, but much smaller, as the scale changes from the far-distant to the more local, from the increasing size, older quasars we are more familiar-with, as the distance to the Black-Hole ^C-R gets larger.

      NOTE: As the quasars get older [more distant and more redshifted], science compounds the problem of understanding by falsely “correcting” the quasar’s “observed” [real-time] redshift (or it’s ongoing real-time-rate) and “restoring” it to an earth-vicinity rate, rather than leaving the rate intact, as it was actually observed.  They buy-into Einstein’s {false} idea from relativity that everywhere-else in this universe the time-rate elsewhere IS IDENTICAL to our time-rate here on earth.

      This complicates science’s understanding of the process, and gives science the idea that the distant quasar’s energy output [way-out “there”] is even greater than it truthfully is, if the true-energy release-rate occurs at the redshift seen by us, that indicates a reduced, real-time-rate.  The C-R theory would maintain that this same process is still ongoing, including right now, {everywhere in this universe}, at approximately the rate observed, if only we could go “out-there” and check on the events “there”, in real time, rather than time-delayed, as we must when we are observing while residing here, on earth.

      The next two items on the list are featured starting on the same page.  Number 21, V381 Nor, also called XTE-J1550-564, the object sits “just” 17,000 light-years from earth, within the Milky Way.  It is a “scaled-down” quasar-lite-like version of much larger, much further away quasar-systems.  The central Black-Hole ^C-R is “only” about 10.6 solar masses, orbited by a binary star approximately 2.5 solar masses.  The article states that, in 1998, this object brightened 1.5 times the brightest current X-ray source (which is the Crab Nebula), also producing “many quadrillion volts of cheap electricity”.

      Here we have a known object producing enormous quantities of electrical charges, at gargantuan voltage ranges.  This is very close-to, (if not exactly-like), what the C-R theory expects from dining Black-Holes ^C-R.  Since the radiation observed was in the X-ray range, this means that extreme magnetic conditions for charged-matter are being encountered.  There is also a dynamic here where a variation in the matter-consumption-rate, while nearing the Black-Hole’s ^C-R vicinity, actually seems-to vary the observed energy (radiated) output.  

      This gives the object’s X-ray brightness a quick variability, and a diet-based flexibility, that thermonuclear fusion-produced radiation cannot match. {Fusion is not allowed to vary that quickly, as the central mass is larger, and less subject to change.} The expected energy-output from a star undergoing nuclear meltdown (at it’s end-of-lifetime stellar collapse) is much more constrained on it’s ability to brighten and dim repeatedly, and periodically, over hours, days, or weeks.  According to the H-R diagram (Herzsprung-Russell), which describes how a star is supposed to age and expire, millions of years are needed for most star’s full cycles.  

      The fusion reaction-rate should not simply be switchable, or scalable, up and down, over a short-period rate.  Fusion only occurs long after gravity accumulates a substantial, central-blob consisting of a massive amount of gas-matter, which is not free to just switch-on and off as fresh, external matter arrives on-scene, trickling-in.

      If the energy-output of the weird object is more external, or “diet-based”, then what goes in to that object should much more strongly modulate, or affect the radiation-energy output that comes-out of that object.  The question is, is there a discernable, predictable output, or is the regional conflict there [right outside the Black-Hole ^C-R] an indication of a Black-Hole ^C-R dining on only what matter is available? The newest observations seem to favor high quantity, variable-rate, externally-sourced, dining on matter, with leftover electrons possessing abundant energy.

      Even though the magazine articles were not written to support the C-R theory ideas, I would ask the home-readers to evaluate objectively what unknowns the text reveals, and ask if this is compatible with conventional ideas on the ongoing processes inside galaxies. {Answer: No} Then, after those ideas are ruled-out, can the same phenomenon seen there be used to indicate a C-R like process?

      (HINT: Would I have written this, and inserted it inside this blog, if it did not?).

      NOTE: The reports of enormous quantities of enormous energies-worth of electrons and high-energy X-rays, gamma rays, ultraviolet, radio waves, infrared, light, microwaves, and the like, are not good indicators of a proper understanding for almost anything conventional, EXCEPT for the C-R theory-like ideas.

      The second weird object, listed on the same page as the above, concerns high energy cosmic rays, as item #20.  If there is one huge advantage for the C-R theory here, it is that only the C-R theory has a built-in “natural” mechanism to produce abundant, high energy positive charges, in bulk.  One interesting fact covered in the article is that 89% of all cosmic rays are single protons, with 10% alpha particles, while only 1% are electrons.

      Almost every conventionally known energy-exciter process should accelerate ALL charged particles in the same manner.  Since the electrons are individually much more excitable, as well as lighter in weight, it is very surprising to the experts that there are not as many high-energy electrons included as cosmic rays.  There is no other competition, theory-wise, so far, that can adequately explain what process imparts the high energy to protons, while virtually ignoring most of the electrons.

      Only the C-R theory naturally transforms protons into positive cosmic rays as a by-product of “normal operations”.  Conventional theory is “stuck in the mud” to try to create a logical reason for the cosmic rays that occur naturally.  This article expresses this exclusion of electrons from cosmic rays as a true mystery.

      There are some natural cosmic rays with truly astounding energies.  I have read elsewhere that last year (in 2010) scientists measured a single cosmic ray with over 300 quintillion eV.  The article states that a single proton can have the impact-energy of a Wimbledon tennis ball at over 100 mph (or 160 km/hr).

      Even at these high energies, I believe the C-R theory is capable of helping to explain why the highest-energy cosmic rays get their energy.

      The next item, #18 on the list, is a galaxy with a large redshift, which is far older than it is supposed to be.  Only found in 2010, galaxy CLG J02182-05102, is composed of at least 60 members, all intensely red.  Some at the center have 10 times the stars that our Milky Way galaxy has.  The big problem for conventional theory [the Big Bang] is that galaxies that massive and developed are not supposed to occur “that early” in this universe.  That awkward situation is no problem for the C-R theory, as the C-R theory says that this universe is infinitely old, but it makes a dilemma for the Big Bang. The red shift indicates that (by conventional reasoning) it’s light should have left around 9.6 billion years ago.

      While that is bad news for conventional understanding, it is great news for the C-R theory, which expects many more “old-looking” galaxies will be found as our equipment improves.

 

      The next item, #17, is SGR 1806-20.  On March 5^th, 1979, a large gamma ray burst pegged the radiation meters on spacecraft near Venus and Earth, for 1/5 of a second. The burst was tracked to a small neutron star with an outrageous (by conventional thinking) magnetic field over 1 quadrillion gauss.  From later on, in 2004, another burst came from this same magnetar, emitting more energy in 1/10 of a second than our sun emitted in 100,000 years.  This 12 mile wide neutron star is located 50,000 light years away, across the galaxy, on the opposite side of the center of our galaxy.

      According to this article, SGR 1806-20 is the most magnetic object ever detected. These magnetars embody the known extremes of gravity, magnetism, and density, all in one compact object.  Supposedly, after about 10,000 years, the magnetic field falls-off (or weakens) to a couple trillion gauss, which decreases their ability to produce the most extreme gamma rays.

      The C-R theory proposes that those extreme magnetic fields are created by instant and simultaneous release of all of the positive charges (mostly protons) which a large Black-Hole ^C-R can free-up, after confining them, by eating them, over millions or billions of years.  Even though most of the protons flee the vicinity in a huge energetic blast, the remaining neutron star retains the intense magnetic field strength.

      Unfortunately, the magnetic field there is far too intense to be re-created here on earth.  Even though we can only get to about a million gauss in earth-laboratories before the conditions become too extreme for the strongest earth-lab materials to endure, and the test apparatus simply explodes, conditions at the magnetar are so intense that even the quadrillion gauss magnetic fields there cannot damage the neutron star’s incredibly-high density.  This may be one place where the original Black-Hole’s ^C-R Neutral Zone ^C-R is destroyed, but most-of the original (inside mass) is left behind as a neutron star. [That means that I may have to revise some of my original ideas.]

      We will now skip some interesting items until we arrive at item #9, M1, the Crab Nebula, with a rapidly spinning pulsar (now revolving at 33 times each second) inside, at the center.  According to this article, the central neutron star has the same density as any atomic nucleus, except that it is 16 miles (or 26 Km) wide.  In this case, this supernova remnant seems to have obliterated the Black-Hole ^C-R that I suspect was there, and merely left a neutron star in it’s original place.

      What is different in this case is that we know the day and the approximate hour of the appearance of the explosion; July 4, 1054, before dawn, as seen and recorded by Chinese astronomers.   (The actual explosion was about 6,500 years earlier, as that is M1's distance from earth.)

      If a Black-Hole ^C-R did exist here beforehand, it may require me to revise my original ideas that most interiors of the original Black-Hole ^C-R (i.e., the inside Active Zone ^C-R), always survive intact, that in this particular case, would appear to be incorrect.

      NOTE: If the original starting mass, originally the Active Zone ^C-R, did not survive intact, it would be more of a revision to my original ideas, than a show-stopper.  I am willing to revise my ideas, if needs be, to incorporate new evidence.  In this case, nature seems to be more flexible, and less “rigid-minded”, than my first concepts expected.

      NOTE #2: By my original concept, the neutron star left behind here did cause me to rule out a possible Black-Hole’s ^C-R involvement.  It was only after I read enough articles about the evidence of a high number of highly energized electrons, and the enormous magnetic fields found there at the Crab Nebula, that persuaded me to change my mind that maybe a Black-Hole ^C-R was involved in just one phase of this object. [Late in the year 2011 is when I changed my mind.]

      In essence, this year’s evidence from articles about the Crab Nebula persuaded me to revise my original rejection of a Black-Hole ^C-R there, because the hallmarks of a C-R theory Black-Hole’s ^C-R activity was stronger than my original ideas suspected.  I allowed nature to show me that some unexpected flexibility was allowed in this extreme example, and that I needed to listen to what I was telling the whole-world about how to recognize where and when a Black-Hole ^C-R exists.  The excess, high-energy electrons there were a dead-giveaway.

      Item #8, the Milky Way antimatter fountain, is one of the most interesting items, from the C-R theory author’s standpoint.  The standard idea is that there is a huge fountain of antimatter (positrons) appearing “magically” around the center of our galaxy, and shooting off 3,500 light-years.  These positrons encounter electrons, and annihilate them, in bulk, producing a characteristic 511,000 eV signature.  By this article, either 10 million, trillion, trillion, trillion positrons each second, or some 500 trillion tons of matter are annihilated each day.

A SHELL of a GOOD IDEA (pun), or this should appeal to you

      From the C-R theory’s view, science considers the above antimatter-fountain scenario more reasonable than: Black-Holes ^C-R there, at the galaxy’s center peel-and-eat their hydrogen’s heavier nucleii, leaving behind the rejected electron “shells” as evidence, as the aftermath of the dinner.* [Besides the central Black-Hole ^C-R, at 4 million solar masses, there are believed to be at least 20,000 additional Black-Holes ^C-R within the central 3 light-years.]

      *IDEA: The Black-Holes ^C-R are actually very peculiar and deliberate eaters.  They strip-off the electrons from their dinner, (or allow ALL-of-the electrons to escape), while completely devouring the protons and proton-neutrons (the nucleii).

      Sadly, mainstream science finds the “fairy-tale” that an antimatter fountain of positrons, (possibly created in interactions with dark matter), is “more reasonable” to accept than that the gourmet Black-Holes ^C-R “hand-fillet” each atom of all of it’s electrons.  HINT: It takes a pretty powerful “fairy” to produce 15 billion tons of positrons each second and hurl them up 3,500 light-years from our galaxy’s center.

      COMMENT:

      I was also reviewing more items from Bob Berman’s 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos when the following thought occurred to me.  Item #8, a supposed fountain of antimatter positrons occurring right in the middle of our galaxy, is based on the detection of an energy-signature release of 511,000 eV worth-of energy that occurs when an electron encounters a positron, annihilating both of them mutually, and producing a gamma ray.

      While I have no quarrel with that process on a limited basis, what does bother me is that mainstream science finds it more reasonable that every second, some 10 million, trillion, trillion, trillion positrons encounter matter and are converted into pure energy, despite the fact that there is no known source for them.  In 1997, the Compton Gamma ray observatory found the energy-release signature of 511,000 eV from this region. Now, science accepts that every second, some 200 billion tons of positrons meet their demise, rather than accepting the “more reasonable” hypothesis from the C-R theory that the Black-Hole(s) ^C-R there are peeling-and-eating the nucleus-matter (the protons and proton-neutron combinations) from all of the atoms, before they dine.

      While I do accept that “by-the-textbooks” this C-R type process does not go on {“in their textbooks opinion”}, is it really that unreasonable? For example: whenever I eat an orange [or a banana, or peanuts in the shell], I peel it first before I eat it, and discard the peel.  If one found however many orange peel pieces in my near vicinity, would it not be more probable evidence supporting my diet of peeled oranges, than to claim that the peels appeared mysteriously from some other {antimatter?} universe?

      Near the end of this article, the real truth comes out: No one has a clue. (Other than you, the home-readers of this C-R theory blog, who have the best clues I can make.)

      I guess what annoys me the most is: after 15-20 years of telling anyone who will read my articles on-line, that ALL Black-Holes ^C-R ALWAYS strip-off all of the electrons from their “atoms for dinner”, before eating them, science finds a non-stop antimatter fountain, spouting 200 billion tons of positrons per second “a more reasonable hypothesis”.  To some extent, maybe I have not been clear enough or convincing enough, or persuasive enough.  The full truth is, the C-R theory ideas are too new, and too radically different, and need too many new ways of thinking to be easily accepted.

 

EXPAND UPON IT (pun)

      I will briefly comment on item #2, our accelerating universe.  The C-R theory has claimed for years, from the very start, that our universe is fixed in size, is not expanding at all, and that the bulk-of the redshifts observed are not Doppler-shifts, from receding or speeding-away, but are almost 100% gravitational redshifts.

      As a consequence of our living on the inside of our closed universe, this mandates that curvature in each direction we can see gradually increases to the full 100%, which also causes the far-off redshifts to increase, too.  This is not really as strange as it first seems, it just requires a new way to understand gravity, based upon what we see in this universe.  I will cover briefly that just as gravity changes by elevation, right here on earth, it also does so, [i.e., change from point-to-point], everywhere else within this universe.

      Where science made it’s biggest mistake was to accept Einstein’s claim, implied from his assumptions in relativity, that everywhere in space was exactly the equivalent to everywhere else, as there was no possible “preferred reference frame”.

      What Einstein failed to realize was: If our universe IS closed-off [from the inside], this forces a “preferred reference frame” to be superimposed over everything INSIDE. Thus, the redshift-ranges we see in far-away objects are positionally related, by curvature, or gravity.  Where you are inside this universe assigns you a curvature level, which changes the redshift amount we notice when we observe objects elsewhere.

      At our universe’s center, would be the minimum overall curvature, and the curvature increases until, in every direction, you reach the outer edges, which end as 100% curvature.  (Once you exceed 100% curvature, this freezes all electromagnetic radiation, and freezes “measurable time”.)

      Of course, as any student knows, it is unacceptable to correct your observed data for what you EXPECT to be wrong, before you draw your conclusions from it.  Since earth’s scientists first CORRECT the observed redshifts {which they ASSUMED were Doppler shifts}, to make the data just like here on earth [time-rate-wise], they actually make their data “WRONG”ER (or more incorrect).

      Compounding the mistaken ideas about our universe’s nature, and then “correcting” the data in the wrong direction, scientists were then able to imagine that our universe’s expansion was accelerating; instead of noting that our mostly static universe, where objects were naturally existing in different real-time-rates elsewhere, and we actually see all events in our universe happening at their TRUE, real-time rates.

      By conventional Newtonian theory, a static universe is not possible.  It must expand, or else collapse.  Without justifying it here, let me state that a closed universe has a true inner stability, and it cannot possibly collapse.  It simply is stable, size-wise, by design.  Because curvature is zero (or minimum) at the center, there is no possibility of collapse inward.  Matter has a “stratification-level” where what energy it possesses is guided-by it’s overall position, as it is measured from the center.

      Since matter at the center is worth the most energy, and the same objects at the outer edges would be worth the least energy, position (location) is everything.  Just as energy must be added, on earth, to lift-up a heavy weight, to move it, so also do objects need to gain energy to move their position inward, or else they surrender energy, if they move from a higher-energy, inner area to lower-energy, outer region.

      NOTE: Please read the C-R theory for a better treatment of the closed universe idea.  The blog merely mentions it, and is not intended to justify my ideas here.

      Finally, we reach the #1 item on the list.  The discovery in 2010 of two enormous, 25,000 light-year-tall bubbles filled with high-energy gamma-rays (or filled with electrons with gamma ray level energies), now tentatively called Fermi bubbles, expanding at 2.2 million mph (3.5 million kph), totally surprised the astronomical community.  While the bubble shape itself was not expected by the C-R theory, the presence of 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy-rich electrons, ejected both above and below our galaxy’s central mass is only “reasonable” from a C-R theory view.  

      Only the C-R theory claims that every Black-Hole ^C-R rejects virtually every electron from the mass it eats, and that these electrons should all have substantial energy leftover.  With a 4 million solar-massed Black-Hole ^C-R, and at least 20,000 other smaller Black-Holes ^C-R stuffed-in around the central 3 light-years, only the C-R theory expects an adequate number of energetic-electron source-generators.

      I would regard the presence of the outrageously high number of gamma-ray-energy-level electrons as a “calling card” for the C-R theory, and the next most reasonable explanation, if it can ever be accepted.  The two lobes may be nature’s way of introducing science to the leftovers from a Black-Hole’s ^C-R meals.  Even if the central, 4 million solar-massed Black-Hole ^C-R did not get a large feast, the 20,000 “scavenger” Black-Holes ^C-R might get some of the credit, too. Whatever gets the credit, there is certainly an adequate cause suggested by the C-R theory to account for the phenomenon we see.

      The lobes might actually be “big enough” to gain science’s attention, or to suggest that there is something going-on.  The bubbles have a temperature of 7 million° F or 3.9 million° C, so we know some extreme energy is involved.

      Some scientists believe [or hope] that these Fermi lobes are finally evidence of dark matter’s interactions with regular matter.  I am trying to share that the C-R theory may have another, more reasonable alternative to consider.  I will leave you, the home reader to chose the best-fit, between the most reasonable alternatives offered to you.

      Again, I would encourage the blog readers to consider purchasing a copy of this special issue of Astronomy magazine. {Bob Berman’s 50 Weirdest Objects in the Cosmos} There are quite a few items I did not cover, that probably do not have anything to do with the C-R theory ideas, but are still fascinating to read about.  I would welcome reader comments or questions about this blog.  I apologize that this took so long to finish, but I have been doing many things for the holidays.

      The C-R theory is either correct, or it is not.  If it is, I believe it helps explain some of the most mysterious items in this special issue magazine.  I can state that mainstream science is not prepared to understand why these things occur.  If I can help you at home understand the processes in this universe better, then this blog is worth the effort.

      There are many new items in other magazines that I would like to comment upon, next year (in 2012).  I am continually amazed that nature has been extraordinarily kind to the C-R theory, and giving many unexpected phenomena that only the C-R theory seems to appreciate, want, and need.

      I will end this blog here, and save more for next time.  Thank you for visiting, and I hope you will visit this web-site again.  Have a Happy New Year, too, as 2011 is rapidly running out of time.  I wish all my visitors a better-informed New Year, for 2012.

Jerry Reynard

October-November blog: There is a special issue of Astronomy magazine for Fall, 2011, that just came out, called : Bob Berman’s 50 Weirdest Objects in the Cosmos, and I let this topical issue bump-back my original lead for this blog which was about the Crab Nebula’s surprises. [I had hinted in the last blog that I wanted to cover the multiverse, but decided the more-immediate opportunities were too fresh and too exciting to cover these other articles that were discussed.  I will save my comments about the multiverse for the next, or a later blog.]

      I try to regularly visit a certain bookstore, a block away from the theater where I like to catch independent and international films downtown, in Washington DC.  That means I have an excuse to walk one block, and check for the newest issues of many magazines.  I had read the previews for this “new special issue” lead item in this blog, and figured it would be a good possibility to feature some items of interest to the C-R theory’s readers.  The nicest things about some of the 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos is that many of Bob Berman’s selections are probably “weird” specifically for their electromagnetic activities, or unexpected (by mainstream science), high-levels of energy released.

      I will attempt to cover some of the most interesting items, from the C-R theory view, that were featured in this special issue, in the first part of this blog.  The issue should be available on newsstands now, for a few months.  I would encourage those regular readers of the C-R theory to pick-up or at least, look-at this magazine, if they can find it. [I don’t know about it’s availability internationally, though.]

      The first weird item of “C-R theory interest” is Sagittarius A*, the 49^th of 50 objects, counting backwards.  It is the Black-Hole ^C-R at the center of our galaxy.  From the C-R theory, the main reason this large Black-Hole ^C-R is so “quiet” is that it is also surrounded by as many as 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R, which collectively do intercept most of the loose-and-available “edible” matter [hydrogen gas], near our galaxy’s central 3 lightyears of volume.

      The real significance of these 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R is totally missed by mainstream science, which does not expect a C-R theory type-of process to be going on.  I suspect that these lesser Black-Holes ^C-R may also have something to do with our central Black-Hole ^C-R being a “measly 4 million solar-masses”, as compared to the billion(s) of solar-massed supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R, seen in other galaxies.

      HINT: The 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R may be the real reason(s) behind the excellent “livability” in our galaxy, vs. the enormous radiation outputs experienced in galaxies with far-larger central Black-Holes ^C-R, that make those galaxies much less hospitable to lifeforms like us.

      Without giving too much away, it might be the actions of these 20,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R which help-to release all of the high-energy excess electrons which becomes the source for the filling-up the two huge lobes, containing 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy, filling the 25,000 light-years above and below our galaxy’s center. {As compared to only the central Black-Hole ^C-R being the generator of the energy filling these lobes.} Those lobes were just discovered last year. (HINT: Those mysterious lobes MAY also feature prominently later on in this special issue.)

      NOTE: Mainstream science maintains that these lobes are filled with pairs of electrons and anti-electrons {positrons}, mysteriously created by interactions with dark matter, [which the C-R theory says does not exist].  The C-R theory claims that these lobes are filled with almost pure electrons, freshly stripped-off from the Black-Hole’s ^C-R lunch.  Whether these electrons came from matter eaten by the central Black-Hole ^C-R, or from the lesser 20,000 Black-Holes ^C-R, or some combination of both, cannot be determined right now.  What is CERTAIN, is that there are enough potential suspect Black-Holes ^C-R lurking there, in and around the center of our galaxy and in that immediate vicinity, and there are huge lobes filled with something highly energetic.

      The C-R theory’s argument is that, by conventional theory, standard black holes should not be spontaneously creating excess-energy electron-pairs by simply “existing”. One can argue that the central Black-Hole ^C-R, Sagittarius A*, shows very little current activity, as compared with many other central supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R in other galaxies.

      Another 2 items featured in the 50 weirdest objects issue are the Crab Nebula and it’s remnant pulsar, which will be covered later in the second part of this blog.

      The starburst galaxy (item # 47), M82, becomes an interesting possibility, for showcasing the release of a huge amount of energy from one of the supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R at the center of a galaxy, colliding with another galaxy, M81.  The huge amounts of radio energy, exploded gas, and infrared energy should be indications of some earlier activity which should be consistent with the release of the contents from a supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R, accumulated over eons or billions of years.  This is how I believe nature recycles matter and energy, and restores the “freshness” of this universe, internally.

      Unfortunately, it may take millions or billions of years to determine (from earth’s vicinity), whether such processes are indeed, going on.  I do hope that the C-R theory provides an adequate alternative to the Big Bang, and gives our home-readers some believable new way to understand what is actually going-on in this universe.

      The Antenna Galaxies (item # 45) seem to indicate yet another type of energy release event, where two galaxies seem to be colliding, and the processes of star-creation is going wild.  Where the “weirdness” comes in is from the (unsuspected) electromagnetic qualities that are just not supposed to be going-on, aided and abetted by the huge releases of energy and electrical (positive or protons) charges freed-up when a supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R becomes contorted-enough to release some, or all of it’s contents.

      Where conventional science wants to attribute ALL of this energy released in galaxy collisions solely to gravity [including the huge “fictional” contributions from unseen masses of dark matter], the C-R theory contends that the central Black-Hole’s ^C-R role in this process is totally unsuspected, and unaccounted-for.  I would advise readers to look at the claims from the C-R theory, and LOOK for similar occurrences everywhere there are enormous quantities of energy released, confined positive charges explosively freed-up, and rings of released charges expanding at velocities not explainable by initial temperatures created in conventional processes.

      My hope is that others will realize that one CAN understand more of the type-of events we actually find occurring in these spectacular displays everywhere we look, and can add a few layers of insight. [without needing ANY dark matter]

       Even though we do live in an era with improved technical resources, and can search the heavens with fantastic new “appliances”, both astronomers and cosmologists do not understand the many clues nature is TRYING to give us, as to the operations inside our universe.  They ARE baffled by a search for a real underlying CAUSE, or a believable energy source to “pay-for-it-all”.  It SHOULD-BE an embarrassment to science that the “dark energy” ultimately comes from seemingly nothing, right out of thin air.  THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. (It may be wishful thinking or fairy-tales.)

      As an alternative, the C-R theory only uses known objects and known forces, in new ways, to accomplish processes which should sound remarkably-like what we actually find in the real world.  We NEVER get something from nothing, and everything is paid-for-in-full, energy-wise.  The processes are new (and maybe speculative).

      Next on the list is the galaxy at Centarus A, NGC 5128, (item # 42).  It features massive lobes of high energy particles leaving the central Black-Hole ^C-R at speeds at least half the speed-of-light.  Do these solid particles gain some of their energy from jets of pure electrons, which only the C-R theory expects to emanate from a feeding Black-Hole ^C-R? It emits intense radio waves.  There was also a jet of X-rays, which could also indicate the presence of high energy electrons.

      Arp 220, (item # 38) is the most intense infrared source from a galaxy in our sky.  It was catalogued by Halton Arp.  It seems to have regions of, both stars born a half-billion years ago, and regions of stars very recently fired-up (within the last few million years).  I suspect some C-R theory-type processes will be featured here, too.

      One of the next items on the list is Io, (item # 34), Jupiter’s innermost large moon. From the C-R theory, this moon receives a [time and orbit varying] cyclic flux-tube-current of up to 5,000,000 amps, and NASA has measured a voltage of 400,000 volts across Io’s face.  The C-R theory claims that at least some of this electrical current could be contributing to the active, sulfur spewing volcanoes observed . {The items of interest to the C-R theory were not featured in this article, but this moon, Io, was noticed for it’s weirdness.}

      I may save more items on this top 50 list for the next blog, in the interest of finishing this blog up and getting it on-line sooner, rather than waiting until even later.  I was already planning to feature some new comments on two more of the items on the list, both from the Crab Nebula and it’s remnant pulsar, before I obtained the issue, so I will comment on them, below.  

      I was reviewing some articles, at work, over my lunchtime, about the most recent surprises from the Crab Nebula.  It emitted outbursts of gamma ray energy over a very short scale, many times more powerful than it’s normal output.  An article from earlier this year was stating that the Crab Nebula’s electrons emitted were already some 100 times more energetic than the best of earth’s “high-energy accelerators” can muster. [up to 100 GeV] That also includes the regular pulses emitted by the Crab Nebula’s pulsar.

      Scientists had grown so accustomed to the “normal” Crab Nebula energy-output, that it had been used to calibrate some earlier equipment in space.  Later-on, it was found that even this normal output has surprising, short-term variations coming from it.

      While earth’s scientists attribute the outgoing beams, travelling at 99.99% of the speed-of-light, to an equal mix of electrons and anti-electrons (positrons), the C-R theory would claim that the beam is the leftover residue from a Black-Hole’s ^C-R lunch (or dinner), and is almost purely electrons.  

      While the electrons should normally repel each other, their collective magnetic fields might just bunch them together, to make it easier for them to leave the scene, en-masse, somewhat reminiscent of a mass-jailbreak, where the escapees band together to escape, then flee separately later-on, after they’ve fled the scene.  

      I remember seeing stock footage from early amusement parks showing groups of people sitting on some wooden circles, who would go shooting-off sideways, when the circles were spun around.  If we could imagine that flat circle as a half a globe, and reverse that footage, it might resemble what the proposed electrons do when leaving a Black-Hole ^C-R.

      Whether or not that is how electrons really behave, it would be one of the simplest explanations as to what could cause two, intensely-energetic beams to shoot-away from Black-Holes ^C-R at 99.99% of the speed-of-light.  The analogy above kind-of simplifies why those electrons would bunch-up into two beams, emerging from the top and bottom of the spinning Black-Hole ^C-R, vs. leaking away from all directions, as an expanding shell.

      If any of the C-R theory’s readers out there has a spare supercomputer, and a few million dollars to spare, it would be interesting to see if a simulation of the C-R theory-based processes would produce the required jets of matter.  A simulation based on the existing theories, where the electrical charge does not become infinitely isolated inside, and the electrons are not stripped-off, will not show anything like what is seen.

      Note: this electron-rejection idea, based upon the construction, operation, and feeding of the Black-Hole ^C-R, is unique to the C-R theory.  For a fuller description of how the Black-Hole ^C-R works, see my earlier blogs, or the C-R theory sections on Black-Hole ^C-R operation.

      Another hallmark of the C-R theory’s differences is that the generic supernova’s enormous instantaneous release of intense energy is primarily due to the escape of a built-up from accumulations of positive charges, rather than a runaway, one-time thermonuclear fusion reaction at the end stages of a star’s lifetime.

      Note: If there is a sudden, explosive release of an enormous quantity of newly-liberated positive charges, the SUDDEN re-appearance of those charges could also contribute substantially to the enormous magnetic fields attributed to both pulsars and magnetars.

      Some magnetar’s magnetic fields have been estimated at one trillion Teslas. [Our earth’s magnetic field is about 0.6 Teslas.] This level of magnetic fields simply CANNOT be created on earth (yet), as the best laboratory equipment disintegrates or shears-apart from stresses after reaching about 1 million Teslas.

      This simple causative mechanism also easily explains the origins (and continual replenishment) behind the source of cosmic rays.  The cosmic rays are predominantly single, high-energy protons.  I read last year that one extreme cosmic ray had been measured to have at least 300 quintillion eV, even though the “average” cosmic rays encountered were much less energetic (at a half-million to a million eV).

      NOTE: I have also read that such an energetic cosmic ray would allow that single proton to pack an energy-punch equivalent to a major league baseball [fastball] thrown into a catcher’s mitt.  Fortunately, most of those cosmic rays are intercepted by our protective atmosphere, and become converted into a massive shower or swarm of lesser-energy particles, well before they can impact us.

      Every second of every day, several cosmic rays are crashing through your bodies, leaving a trail of damage, which does build-up over a lifetime.  The cellular repair mechanisms of your body attempt to repair the most significant damages, but subtle changes do persist.

      I do not know of any other theory, besides the C-R theory, that is willing and able to make very specific predictions as to what to look-for, and where to look.  I invite all of our home readers to look for reports of new phenomenon featuring C-R theory-like levels of energy output.

      In spite of the tendency for science writers to “not-write” articles from a C-R specific vantage point, there is abundant evidence left in the everyday reports suggesting vastly more electromagnetic activity, magnetic fields, interstellar gas flows, ionization, warm gasses (from 4,000 to 10,000 K) in the Reynold’s layer, huge lobes filled with electrons (or else, a 50-50 mix of electrons and anti-electrons, if standard theory is correct).

      Strong Hint: If we also observe all of the electromagnetic radiation emanating from galaxies, in almost every energy band, and the level of polarization, from the presence of strong magnetic fields, we can check that SOMETHING electrical is going-on there.

      The REAL IRONY: In spite of ALL the evidence for electromagnetic activity inside galaxies, astronomers want to attribute the action holding galaxies arms together exclusively to gravity, generated by dark matter, for which there is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence, instead of a KNOWN FORCE, electromagnetism, which is 10⁴⁰ times stronger, per atom, than the attraction from gravity.  Every galaxy we detect seems to be rife with polarized light, magnetic fields, radiation in every band from radio, microwave, infrared, light, X-rays, and gamma rays.

      If we were to set-up a police-style line-up, looking for the “guilty parties” to “blame” for holding-together galaxy arms, let us imagine this example.  To cause the Reynold’s layer, found in the Milky Way and other nearby galaxies, dark matter would be needed to generate the excess gravity to hold-together the galaxy arms from shearing-off or smearing out, and twisting (spiraling-around) until the arms were stir-blended (mixed-in until they were homogenous) together.

      Or, to generate the magnetic fields capable of confining or constraining the galaxy’s arms from shearing-off, we would need candidates to blame for the 4,000-10,000 K hydrogen gas layer. [the Reynold’s layer] If we lined-up ALL of the galaxy’s 200 billion stars, side by side, and had them each read “I’m guilty” (of causing this galaxy’s arms to hold together intact, magnetically), we could eliminate those below 4,000 K and above 10,000 K.  That would still leave tens of billions of viable suspects to consider.

      The world’s scientists just have had such “blinders” on, that they have only considered dark matter as the possible source of the missing gravity, and “forgotten-about” the other 50% of the known inverse-square forces, electromagnetism, for which I (as the C-R theory’s author) consider the evidence to be abundant and overwhelming.

      I would appreciate any of my incoming home-readers to help get out the idea that there is a practical, reasonable alternative to dark matter to explain why galaxies hold together available in the C-R theory.

      The recent surprises from the Crab Nebula were said to be unexpected by scientists, but I think they are more “good news” for the C-R theory.  There were unexpectedly high levels of x-rays varying over very short time intervals found coming from the remnant location of the explosion in the Crab Nebula.  I probably have avoided this topic, from a C-R theory standpoint, since I felt that the pulsar left behind more clearly seemed to demonstrate a neutron star-like behavior, as opposed to a Black-Hole ^C-R like appearance.  Just recently, in searching articles about the Crab Nebula, I came across an article from April, 2011, with descriptions of the emissions from the Cygnus X-1 pulsar as “electrons with over 100 times the amount of energy of anything we can produce in our most advanced LHC.  That article emboldened-me, and reminded me that only the C-R theory claims that Black-Holes ^C-R emit copious amounts of these high-energy electrons.

      This helped me to decide that maybe the C-R theory ideas can help here, in this case, too, and that the pulsar at this spot is either a type of a Black-Hole ^C-R, or somehow, is mimicking the same [or a very similar process] as I have attributed to Black-Holes ^C-R.  If it also is stripping off the electrons from matter, and confining the neutrons and protons as effectively as a Black-Hole ^C-R, then it is time to let science have a look to see if it is so.  Give that idea a fair “test-drive”.

      I’ve been saying for over 30 years that the Black-Hole ^C-R eats only the proton and proton-neutron combination, and separates [and spits-out or rejects] the electrons, without consuming very many (if any).

      Either these high energy electrons ARE from Black-Holes ^C-R, or something similar that the pulsar there is mimicking.  This means that, maybe the C-R theory ideas can be of use here, to help scientists to understand what is going on.  Mainstream science certainly is not looking for any “C-R theory-like” mechanisms.  At least until some other, more plausible process can be proposed, get the C-R theory’s “foot-in-the-door”, where it might be helpful.

      The October 2011 Scientific American also had an interesting cover article about “Warped by dark matter”, which is worthy of a mention.  The article, starting on page 38, by Leo Blitz, covers a twist to the shape of the Milky Way.  I would offer that, as well as holding our galaxy’s arms together, simple electromagnetism can also produce the warped shape of our galaxy, and not need to call upon dark matter to do the job.

      According to this article, it is possible that this warp-shaping varies over time [oscillates], and is cyclical.  The C-R theory could agree with that possibility, just not that it was the influence of dark matter acting upon the galaxies, via gravity.

      Not one experiment has ever shown any indication that anything like dark matter exists.  Mainstream science is using dark matter as a simple fix for the expectations of their theories, to correct the errors which should have been obvious [that those theories don’t fit reality].

      I hope to expand upon that idea in the next blog, and still get to the C-R theory’s take on why the multiverse is not needed, either.

      This blog was to have been October’s blog, but I goofed-off enough so that this had to wait until the beginning of November.

      I was going to celebrate the 36,000^th visitor’s arrival to this web-site, but I also delayed long enough that we are now just over the 37,000^th visitor’s arrival, too.

      Thanks to all who have visited, I hope you can find new ways to appreciate our universe.  If you do not believe the C-R theory yet, that is expected, too.  I trust that I can provide some fodder for arguments that many have never considered.  If you cannot change your lifetime’s viewpoint in one reading, that is normal, too.

      I would simply try to ask for a fair evaluation, with an open mind.  If I can start the process of changing your thinking, that is progress.  If I can help you to learn more about our fascinating home (this universe), then that is a good thing, too.  Nature has left abundant clues, hidden everywhere, in plain sight, for ALL to see.  If I can help you to understand HOW the pieces all fit-together, that is my goal.

      My biggest claim is, our universe MAKES SENSE, once you understand HOW to look at it, and WHAT you are seeing.  If YOU can use some of this information and speculation from the C-R theory to understand it better, then we all benefit.  There IS much more left to learn, and to understand.

      There are many reports with items that may make more sense when combined with many other observations.  If you can contribute to the overall understanding, that would be great.

      Please feel free to disagree with the C-R theory, or to build upon it and try to improve it further.  If you do enjoy it, please let others know, and recommend it to them.

      Expect to need to return more than once to fully grasp these ideas.

Until the next blog,

Jerry Reynard.