# Sunday, July 04, 2010
The most Outrageous Anomaly Known to Science

The most Outrageous Anomaly Known to Science, (but kind-of swept under the rug, as too embarrassing for "Science" to admit to).

It is the opinion of the C-R theory that the phenomenon known as The Double-Negative Ionization of All the Hydrogen Atoms in Our Sun's Photosphere" is the most outrageous anomaly known to science.  It is easily explained by the C-R theory, but virtually no other theories seem to rejoice over this inconvenient "fact".

Stated simply, in our sun's photosphere (the "yellow" part we see that glows, or puts out all of the light we see), almost ALL of the hydrogen atoms there are saturated with as many electrons as that hydrogen atom can handle.  Every hydrogen atom there has two EACH electrons, despite the fact that the photosphere is heated-to over 6,000° C or almost 10,000° F.  On earth, for the hydrogen gas, each atom would rid itself of even a single electron, and be positively ionized at those temperatures.  (Like a neon sign ionizes, then glows, after high voltage is applied.)

The only simple answer must be that there are way too many available electrons there, in that region, far more than conventional theory can account for.  Far more than thermonuclear fusion (hydrogen to helium conversion) could provide.

At normal room temperatures on earth, hydrogen atoms would pair-up, and each one would mutually share their single electron with another hydrogen atom, to exist as an H2 molecule.  If we heated-up this gas, it would positively ionize, and let at least one electron escape.

Cross section diagram

Only the C-R theory says that our sun is powered by a small Black-Hole C-R, which has the unique properties: It never collapses into a singularity.  The matter consumed is stored in a region that technically has an escape velocity greater than lightspeed, which completely turns-off or inactivates the properties of matter (except mass).

This region (or volume) is called the Neutral Zone C-R, specifically because of this property.  Matter in the Neutral Zone C-R is stored-at it's lowest-possible gravitational state.  (The orange colored region's size is greatly exaggerated in this diagram, to allow the labeling text to be readable inside.)

Immediately inside this volume of space resides an Active Zone C-R.  The Active Zone C-R is always a perfectly closed off region of spacetime which always has exactly enough mass, at exactly the right density, to close-off spacetime.  This is not by accident, but is why the Black-Hole C-R exists in the first place.  The energy of matter in the Active Zone C-R is arranged so that the least-energetic matter is always located nearer the outside edges, and the energy-worth increases until the center is reached.

This layering effect totally prevents a gravitational collapse.  Matter must either possess or gain enough energy to be allowed to exist-in, or travel-to a higher-energy region.  (The higher energy or more active part is where the color gets lighter in the diagram above.  The darker the region, the less energy it is worth.)  This is something-like why a life jacket always floats to the surface in a swimming pool, and a stone sinks to the bottom.

HINT: Our entire universe is also an inner Active Zone C-R, and has all the observable properties needed to qualify.

The small Black-Hole C-R at the sun's center devours and stores-away the heavier nucleus (in an insulated, turned-off, neutralized state), and lets almost all of the much lighter electrons escape freely. (Without being consumed)  The Black-Hole C-R sorts, then eats sub-atomic preferred particles BY MASS, but rejects the low-mass electrons.  GASP, what a shock!!! (Pun intended)  My favorite Black-Hole C-R pun is that a Black-Hole C-R is a mass-sieve body because a Black-Hole C-R sorts and sifts sub-atomic particles BY MASS before it eats them.

Squeezing energy from matter

Briefly, the force we think-of as gravity is actually a result of the action of curvature acting upon matter, something like how the juice squeezed-out of an orange is proportional to the force exerted upon the orange, up to a point.  However, after all of the juice is squeezed-out, there is no more.  The C-R theory predicts that this analogy will be found to describe the case of all matter devoured by a Black-Hole C-R, too.  Because this effect is indirectly caused, there never needs to be any electromagnetic (or speed-of-light based) radiation emitted from a Black-Hole C-R.

The C-R theory may also be unique in pointing out that gravity and electrical charge have the opposite effects when trying to pass-out-from a Black-Hole C-R.  Whereas curvature simply exists throughout space (or spacetime), it does not "radiate" out or through the Schwarzschild radius (or have to actively cross through the event horizon).  The C-R theory claims that even the "knowledge-of the quantity of the electrical charge inside" cannot pass through the Schwarzschild barrier, and is trapped, insulated, isolated, and inactivated inside. {Conventional theory concludes exactly the opposite.}

NOTE: Rather than facing a calamity or catastrophe as a result of this key difference in results, nature EXPLOITS this property to the hilt, to recycle matter and energy with 100% long-term efficiency [and thus, in the process, effectively restore entropy within this universe].

To the best of my knowledge, only the C-R theory predicts that an active (mass eating) Black-Hole C-R will show the evidence of external effects of a massive imbalance in electrical charge, or excess electrons.  This will not be a 50-50 mix of positrons and electrons (electrically balanced), but will be mostly electrons.  HINT: The collimated jets emerging from Black-Holes C-R at near light speed ( 99%+ of "c") will be found to be streams of pure electrons, too.  If not, the C-R theory is probably wrong.

NOTE: If we do not detect massive electrical-charge imbalances everywhere in this universe where Black-Holes C-R "lurk and operate", the C-R theory is wrong.  But, if we do, please remember where you read about it, and pay us a return visit or more.

Uniquely, the inner area (the Active Zone C-R will not change, or increase in mass at all, as the Black-Hole C-R consumes matter.  All of the increase over time will occur exclusively by adding mass into the Neutral Zone C-R, the portion immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  This should be the case, even for the largest known supermassive Black-Holes C-R!!!

By completely avoiding any possibility of dealing with any singularity, and substituting a much-more human-friendly concept of a "property turn-off, or shut-down, like the difference digitally from a 1 to a 0, the C-R theory makes the Black-Hole C-R much more end-user friendly to understand, and much more useful, to boot.  Thus, the C-R theory IS OFFERING one of the very few, human-friendly, simple-to-understand explanations for a Black-Hole C-R, it's uses, and their intended purpose within this universe.  So far, even for free, we have had few takers.

HINT: If I were to upend a fancy race car, and stand it upright on it's bumper, so it's 4 wheels were totally off the ground, this "inactivation" is more akin to what a photon or particle could effectively DO in the Neutral Zone C-R than an actual real time stoppage.  The action, and the energy value is maintained, but it is "warped-out-of-the-plane", so to speak.

HINT: Think of a racing greyhound, trained to run only at the speed-of-light.  Imagine, his tail itches so badly, that he only can run in tight circles, trying to catch, then itch his tail.  His speed would still be "c", but he would actually go nowhere, race-wise. This is a more accurate depiction of how I now imagine the activity inside the Neutral Zone C-R, rather than as a zone of "frozen time", trapped "ice-cube-like" in a frozen-solid block.  I wanted to clear-up this area where some of my earlier comments may have been misunderstood, or I was not as clear as I now realize I should have been.

HINT: Think like the parachutist, i.e. (punfully): jump out-of-the-plane.  

An additional pun is 0 = i "c" { "Oh, I see!!" : describing this "nothing" as light travelling or resonating in an "imaginary dimension" at "c", the speed-of-light, one we cannot visit when we are living in real-time.  Then think of light somehow "spinning or resonating" at right angles to all of our standard 3 dimensions, in an imaginary direction, rather than simply standing still.}

COMMENT: The interaction inside the Neutral Zone C-R is still forbidden, or turned-off, but the visualization of the method of the turn-off process was interpreted as a more-classical "time-freezing" concept by some readers who read my earlier writings.  I wanted to clarify my method of explaining the process of "How the turn-off was done".

NOTE: Most lesser sized Black-Holes C-R will not have a "mostly empty universe" enclosed inside, but will be much denser overall, and more fully packed.  I would imagine that the center of the proposed Black-Hole C-R at the center of our sun is probably a dense concentration of matter, like a ball of neutrons , which is still exactly critical.  Even at it's center, the net curvature will always be minimum.  This is a built-in "safety valve" against any possible collapse inward, and is the case for every type and size-of our "brand name" Black-Holes C-R.

This safety-feature, preventing possible collapse, is also a unique benefit derived from this new understanding, the C-R theory method of causing "gravity" indirectly, by curvature.

Conventional theory expects that it was "gravity" that caused the resulting curvature.  They put the onus on "gravity" to collapse or attract matter inward, whereas nature has, in reality, already "solved" the problem backwards.  Conventional theory has proverbially put the cart before the horse, and does not see the expected dilemma results from their misunderstanding of "cause and effect", in that order.

If one does not understand the true "cause" of gravity, one's expectations (the collapse into a singularity) cannot be prevented.  When one (i.e., YOU) understands it, the collapse cannot BE accomplished.  This is a major, and fundamental difference in gravitational expectations.  

My personal dilemma is that the C-R theory approach has allowed or permitted me to understand this "new method" already for 30 years, but it could take many more years until mainstream science catches-up to accept or even seriously consider, this new-type of understanding.

I am trying to give-away the new answer, for FREE, to anyone who will listen, and try to accept it.  I believe a very few have, and I am grateful for their support.  The vast majority is still stuck in their "mostly Newtonian mode-of-thinking".  This method works very well above-ground, over our earth, where it has been extensively tested.  

Only the C-R theory predicts that Newtonian gravity will fail miserably and spectacularly if we could test it, say anywhere below the Core-Mantle-Boundary.  Unfortunately, conditions there are truly miserable, too (about 11,000° F), and humans have not yet successfully gone even halfway down our thin, lightweight crust, much less the challenging conditions faced by any man-made technology at the Core-Mantle-Boundary.  We can barely send a probe down to function at the full undersea pressure found down at "only" 7 miles depth in the oceans, and that is much nearer to room temperature than anything near the mantle or the core.

I would like to invite those home-readers who regularly re-visit this site to correspond with me.  I would like to help you understand these new concepts, and possibly clear-up some misunderstandings.  I do appreciate that there are a few individuals who do check in regularly, and who may need time to accept or adopt these concepts.  I do appreciate your efforts, and will help if I can.

NOTE: If you tend to reject these ideas at first, that is expected.  I was not too comfortable with them myself initially.  As I pondered-over these ideas, and saw their usefulness in action (trying them out on the real-world observations over the last 30 years), I have been impressed by the accuracy and the constancy that these ideas have with what we do actually see.

I would invite skeptics to simply reject these ideas as fiction, fantasy, fabrications, falsehoods and the like.  Then, use them anyway to honestly evaluate what is actually found in any and every new observation (LINK or LIST).  Are there indeed enormous stray electrical currents seen nearly everywhere? Is there polarized light in nearly every bandwidth, over every octave from at least radio to X-rays? HINT: Something is polarizing all those electromagnetic waves.

Are there indeed indications of huge quantities of ionized radical compounds and elements? (See my previous blog on Jupiter's magnetosphere.) Are there abundant high-energy cosmic rays (charged protons) coming from somewhere? Are ALL of the hydrogen atoms in our sun's photosphere "enriched" with TWO ELECTRONS EACH, despite their 6,000 ° C temperature (almost 10,000 ° F)?

Could the simple presence of known-amounts of electromagnetic energy explain-away the "mysterious" holding-together of a galaxy's spinning arms better than "missing" dark matter? Why not at least consider that possibility first before spending good money on a mad quest for the unknown?

Do older supernova remnants have outrageously high levels of excess positive ions, giving them incredible staying-power?  Unless one suspects this method as the "cause" of the supernova's expansion [the catastrophic release of accumulated "excess" captured (isolated and insulated) positive charges], one will never understand why they continue to expand for long periods (years, decades, millennia) after their temperature should-have cooled down.  Will excess electrons be found in the vicinity of EVERY matter-eating Black-Hole C-R?

Will we (humanity) ever discover a way to eliminate Doppler shift (caused by the supposed motion away from us) as the major cause of most-of the red shifts seen?

Many of those separately might be a coincidence.  ALL of them ganged-together suggest an underlying pattern, or cause.  The C-R theory should be one of the easiest possible ways to understand the true significance of ALL of those types-of observations summed-together.  The C-R theory is not clever enough or powerfully-supported enough to "fake" all of those collective observations.  It is well-positioned enough to add a new level of understanding, by linking together those types-of observations into a new pattern, using new ideas to understand WHY these things are.  Then, if the pattern seems relevant, are the ideas truly fictional, or are they simply noticed well ahead of their intended time?

Science should notice them in the next several hundred years, but why wait til then when you can "cheat" a little bit, accept the C-R theory, and understand it now?

If the patterns are simply a one-time fluke of nature, then subsequent observations will not bear them out.  If the patterns continually seem to repeat, it is conceivable that the C-R theory has "accidentally uncovered" a new pathway, completely unexpected, for how our universe works.

How to change your expectations.  I have considered my failure to communicate what I think I recognize as new, as a failure to communicate the real differences involved.  I will try again to remedy that situation.  If I can communicate anything from the C-R theory, it is that gravity works much more like Einstein originally thought, as a curvature-based idea, than even he realized (or could accept).

Like the window-washer on a skyscraper, he should have taken a few steps back to admire the full view, and realize that our entire universe is governed-by, and even dominated-by curvature.  Everywhere nearer the outermost portions of our universe, curvature is the main influence.  Spacetime out there is more curved, more bent, {more de-focused or diffused too}, and any mass there is worth much less energy.

Cross section diagram of the universe

As one nears the center of our universe, "The Great Attractor", any mass there is worth more energy, and is also clocking-faster (or blue shifted to us) than for that same mass located here on earth.  Any attempt to understand this universe WITHOUT FIRST understanding that "time-difference" concept is surely doomed.

Everytime I see the High Definition intro from PBS where they tout, "Our universe has no center and no edges", I can see why they are hopelessly confused.  If I owned a bowling ball, and tried to understand it's properties while yet claiming that it had no center, and no outer edges either, my understanding of it would surely be off base and worthless as a starting point.

If only they could see HOW SIMPLE it really is to understand.  If only they would give the C-R theory ideas a test-drive, and "take them out for a spin", they could see the usefulness of understanding the bigger picture, first.

Mainstream science is so "tangled-up" in their bad ideas, something like a marine creature hopelessly entwined in a stray fishing-net, that they don't even know which way is down, "And I do mean that, literally".  I will explain that more fully here in a little while.

Let us start off with the C-R theory basics.  Gravity (the attraction of two masses for each other) is caused by curvature.  Curvature aids both of the masses to lose energy selectively, which then becomes the same energy used to accelerate the masses towards each other.  This (kinetic) energy comes directly out of each mass, and is never supplied-by any external source.  NOTE: This means that a Black-Hole C-R does not have to emit any energy from inside the Schwarzschild radius, and that the (non-existent) singularity inside the same Black-Hole C-R need not "know" how much energy to "leak-out or pump out" from inside to allow masses to accelerate towards the Black-Hole C-R.

Another great benefit of this type-of system (and accounting for the energy) is that, once matter has entered-through the Schwarzschild radius (or passed through the event horizon), it HAS LOST all of the energy it can lose to gravity, and cannot be "attracted" any further.  This is an additional "common-sense" type safeguard nature has already built into a C-R theory brand name Black-Hole C-R.  Further collapse inward is impossible, without first gaining more energy (which is not available in any case).

I cannot oversell the importance of the practicality of the brand name Black-Hole C-R vs the conventional black hole in a return to simple, human-friendly understanding.  If you can accept the simplicity of the concept, and the careful thoughtfulness of the "design", and see ALL of it's benefits, you will never want-to "go back" to the old inferior concept of a conventional black hole again.

Black-Holes C-R provide guidance for matter, especially in the center of galaxies, giving the galaxy a "stability" it would otherwise lack.  Black-Holes C-R set and establish the lowest limits for gravitational energy "lowness".  Once mass enters into this Neutral Zone C-R area, it is as low as it can ever go, energy wise.  Mass cannot (is not allowed to) venture forth further inward, by "collapsing" back into "real-time", into the Active Zone C-R immediately inside every Black-Hole C-R.

The Black-Hole C-R is also the source for some, if not most of the mass orbiting around in a galaxy.  As well as being a "garbage disposal" to place the "trash" into, and the restoring energy source of the nova, supernova, quasar, Seyfert galaxy, active galaxy, and gamma ray burst (GRB), the Black-Hole C-R is also the renewer of energy, recycling matter-energy and restoring them to a "pristine state" over and over again.

The Black-Hole C-R (and the ex-Black-Hole C-R events listed above) are also the sources of the electrical imbalances (causing all polarized light) seen all over this universe, which includes the prime driving forces of almost all movement of masses. These activities never "run out of energy", they just allow some "re-arranging" and re-bunching to occur over and over again.

Since our universe IS the inside Active Zone C-R inside a large Black-Hole C-R, this means that the energy content, volume (size), density, and the like are fixed, constant, and always remain the same. (They are perfectly contained inside this volume, with no leakage-out, ever.) Our universe always has looked very much like it looks, right now, and always will look very much like it looks right now, with various activities going on at a reasonable rate.  This universe will never expand beyond it's present size, will never run-downhill (energy-wise), but will continually recycle in "catastrophic and spectacular energy-release events".

NOTE: We do see increasing red-shifts in all directions outward, because those regions are literally slower, clockwise, than we are here on earth.  Closer-in to the center, we will see only that region blue-shifted with respect to us, because that region is clocking-faster than us.  Only if we see both-type of areas, simultaneously, at the same time, can we say we are living inside a closed universe. (And the C-R theory can say so, because that appears to be exactly the case we do see.)

NOTE: Because the Neutral Zone C-R is real-time frozen, and can never emit any energy while it is in operation, {acquiring additional mass and energy}, it must be exactly 100% thermodynamically efficient at recycling matter and energy.  That is why the C-R theory is very careful to specify that No Black-Hole C-R can possibly leak-out anything (not even one lowly photon in a billion years).  To do otherwise would ruin the system's perfect design.  Sufficiently disturbing this perfect trap can eventually lead to some small portion re-activating, which decreases the internal density, which carrys over until the entire Neutral Zone C-R can be released.

Technical Note: Since no simulations using supercomputers have tried a C-R theory-type nova, supernova, quasar, or GRB, mainstream science has missed-out on the true explosiveness of the release process, and of the prolonged staying-power of the expansion, driven by an overload of excess positive charges simultaneously released.  The evidence is probably there in the supernova's spectrum, indicating massive positive ionizations up to at least Fe+23, or iron atoms stripped of at least 23 electrons.  Until all of those excess positive charges are neutralized, the shell will continue to expand, and clear a big hole.  HINT: Look at any of the Hubble pictures for visual evidence of expanding bubbles or shells of gasses and ejecta.

NOTE TOO: That is why it is essential that the design of the Black-Hole C-R sows the seeds to it's own demise by storing-up, inside, the only known force that CAN overcome gravity (if physically enabled to do so).  Every Black-Hole C-R consumes the nucleus, consisting of the proton and possibly the neutron (if eating anything heavier than hydrogen), and rejects the pesky electrons.

NEW PUN: You will reap what you sow (from a Black-Hole's C-R inside), after you rip what you sew(-up) inside. {By ripping-open the Neutral Zone C-R}

DEMO: The ex-Neutral Zone C-R phenomenon can be likened-to the movie scene with Augustus P. Creosote, the world's fattest man, in a restaurant, in the Monty Python film The Meaning of Life.

I would like to comment on the new Science Channel series, Through the Wormhole, with Morgan Freeman.

The second program of the series dealt with black holes (conventional ones).  I know that the C-R theory longs to input some fresh new insight, and make the C-R theory way of thinking more well-known.  Their "experts" continually lament the fact that the equations leave them helpless to understand what goes on inside a conventional black hole.  The C-R theory would like to remedy that situation.

The primary difference, from a practical sense, is that the C-R theory brand-name Black-Hole C-R cannot possibly collapse into a singularity.  This is because the C-R theory understands the nature of gravity is caused or brought about by the action of curvature upon matter.  Curvature, in effect, causes matter to re-arrange or re-distribute it's available energy.  It is the coming-out of this displaced energy which provides 100% of the kinetic energy we notice as acceleration from gravity.

anatomy diagram

In essence, the curvature changes the energy-carrying capacity of matter.  More curved matter can only contain or control less energy.  Greater curvature = greater energy displacement (or release) of energy from matter.

Because it is this energy-carrying capacity change that "produces" the (after)effect we notice as gravity, it should stand to reason that it is the most bent, most curved, strongly-warped, or highly distorted regions where the greatest effect can be realized. (Not at the center!!!)

Since the curvature at the center of any mass is always the LOWEST amount at the mass'es center, this rules out, and prevents any possible collapse into a singularity.  It is the very nature of any curved object that the maximum effect of curvature must always be on the outermost edges of the mass, or immediately inside-of the Schwarzschild radius, for every Black-Hole C-R.* (*Unless the internal density is non-linear, just as it happens on our dear earth, with density increasing by more than quadrupling with depth, below the surface.  This is very, very rare in this universe.)

NOTE: The Green and Yellow circles each represent a Schwarzschild radius (outer and inner, respectively), defining and confining the start-of the Neutral Zone C-R and the end-of the Neutral Zone C-R in-between.  These two Schwarzschild radii are unique to the C-R theory, and are not even imagined by conventional theory.

The argument from the C-R theory point-of-view is that this limitation of curvature, where the most curved (warped, bent) mass is the most affected section, immediately limits and prevents any further collapse inward, in the first place.

Whenever the Black-Hole C-R draws-in something past the Schwarzschild radius, once the escape velocity exceeds the speed-of-light, this turns-off, inactivates, and neutralizes any possibility of further interaction, electromagnetically.

Additionally, immediately inside this Neutral Zone C-R region, there is ALWAYS a completely closed-off, fully formed Active Zone C-R, which becomes something like a "desert island" for property-isolation.  

This Active Zone C-R inside is also what establishes the Black-Hole C-R in the first place.  This inside zone is completely self-contained and self-sealed, can never be added-to, or taken-away-from.  It acts like a giant "placeholder" (i.e., just like a zero holds a decimal number's range in any position where it sits, like 10, 2001, 90125.589, or 0).  

Because this inside region is always real-time active, and, therefore, always more energetic than the Neutral Zone C-R, matter residing in the Neutral Zone C-R cannot simply "collapse inward" without acquiring additional energy first.  {Just like a bankrupt pauper or beggar cannot gain entry [or an invitation] into an exclusive millionaire's only club, and he would be made to feel just as "un-welcome" inside.}

After fixing the singularity problem, the C-R theory would also like to further explain the idea of "How curvature CREATES gravity".  Inherent to that idea is that all matter {mass} contains it's own internal-energy levels, and keeps-account-of how much energy it has.  When curvature "adjusts" matters energy-holding capacity, it forces curved matter to release some energy.  This freed amount released is EXACTLY what we detect as the kinetic energy the same mass acquires (to produce the acceleration we measure).  NOTE: This new idea is a great simplification.  This explains where is the source of gravity's energy coming-from.  NOTE: This is WHY curvature must exist first, then act-upon matter to cause some small amount of the energy from that same matter to be released.

VERY IMPORTANT: If matter is already at it's lowest energy state, inside the Black-Hole C-R, NO ADDITIONAL energy CAN EVER BE RELEASED.  This sensibly limits the effect of gravity, and is what helps prevent the possibility of a singularity.  A C-R theory gravity joke goes: Gravity is kind-of like SENIORITY, i.e., No time = No Pull

The C-R theory does not need to explain how a conventional black hole "knows" exactly how much energy to emit from it's internal singularity to produce the effects seen.  We do not need to try to understand how this energy (to create the effect of gravity) passes through the event horizon, when heat and light absolutely cannot do so at all.

Because curvature is more-like a (geometric, or metric) shape-bending, or twisting-distortion-shaping of spacetime, which simply exists (as-is), this process does not have to radiate-out-of or pass through the Schwarzschild radius (or the event horizon).  The C-R theory does not have to postulate some magic source of that phantom energy arising magically from some nether world, or supplied from some external dimensions.

All we need is for each mass to carry-around it's own internal supply of energy, and to draw-from a very small amount of that confined energy when called upon by curvature to do so.  Note that we never get something for nothing, and that every last photon of energy's worth is strictly accounted-for, and paid-for in full, by the very mass being acted-upon.

An additional tremendous benefit to this type of understanding is the built-in safety factor that the collapse into a singularity is totally prevented because the starting design completely prevents collapses from occurring.  One only gets this benefit from using curvature as the CAUSE of gravity.  Once curvature has done it's "dirty-work" and removed ALL available energy from matter (trapped inside the Schwarzschild radius), no further lowering of energy is possible, because there is NONE TO GIVE.

I cannot overexpress this practicality and usefulness {and newness}.  I cannot overdo my enthusiasm for that NEW type-of understanding of "How gravity works". NOTE: A simple Newtonian-based understanding of gravity cannot be so successful.  It is DOOMED-to-FAIL by it's very nature.  The surprise is, that this formula-based understanding will be found to be non-applicable in certain situations.  Those situations HAVE NOT YET been tested from here, above earth's surface.

Do not be alarmed if this very new thinking, realizing how curvature acts to cause gravity, does not sink-in right away.  That is normal.  I do not expect anyone to give-up a lifetime's worth of old understanding right away, without some kind of internal struggle.  What I am asking is that you home-readers consider this new method, ask if it meets the minimum scientific standards of logic and accountability.  Then ask if it is plausible.  Next, ask if this new method finally makes more sense than the old (Newtonian) way.

The real final test is, Does it make more sense to YOU? Can you understand it? Do you now understand THE SOURCE for kinetic energy? Can you see why building-in a strict limit, restricting energy output from a mass to 100% of the available energy, makes much more long-term sense.  (That doesn't make it right, but it surely simplifies understanding what happens in extreme cases like Black-Holes C-R?)

Again, thanks for considering the C-R theory, and expect to reject it at first, before the extreme simplicity overwhelms your doubts.  It is either right, or it is wrong (or some combination of both).  It IS NOT the same, and does not have the same expectations as does Newtonian-type gravity.

In most cases we are familiar-with, and where gravity has been extensively tested, the two systems will behave almost the same.  It is in the extremes, and below earth's surface, where the real differences will stand-out.  I hope to address more ideas on this topic in the near future.

Thank you for visiting this blog.

Last edited (by me, 7-2-2010)

Jerry

Sunday, July 04, 2010 8:24:22 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [4]  | 
# Saturday, July 03, 2010
The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle

W.I.R.D.A.R.D. = When In Rome, Do As Romans Do, or literally translated into action, act like a “local”, and not like an outsider or a tourist, or a stranger. When referring to light, and lightspeed, the C-R theory suspects that light {arriving from elsewhere, somewhere with a “different” speed-of-light there} instantly adapts to “local” conditions (speed-wise). Because it either passes through something clear, like glass or plastic, or reflects off-of a surface, like a mirror, before we measure it, and those are fixed, or non-moving with respect to us when we attempt to measure lightspeed (mostly by an interferometer), we will never see or detect any changes in the speed-of-light as much because of the way we try to measure the speed, than that light (when it is elsewhere) never changes.

      The following letter refers to my most recent thoughts on the topic, a topic I have not recently covered in my blogs.

NOTE: The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle, by it’s very nature, is virtually non-testable “locally”, if light always adapts to “local” conditions. If light “elsewhere” adapts differently there, without going there, and measuring light “there”, could we find any difference. What I am trying to do is arrive at a real-world method to account-for why light “here” always measures at lightspeed.

      The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle is that light is the ultimate “wimp” (or conformer, yielder). Something “chameleon-like” or “octopus-like” in the nature of light, where it instantly adapts to local conditions, and never appears as a “foreigner” or a “visitor from far-away”. Because there is no experiment here on earth we can perform that measures light behavior at “The Great Attractor”, or near the outer edges of our universe {if our universe has outer edges, as the C-R theory supposes}, scientists have assumed that light always acts like it does right here, and that space is isotropic, or the same (identical) in all directions.

      What the C-R theory is trying to say, or bring into a forum for discussion is: If light instantly adapts to local conditions (or is instantly re-normalized), when we measure light arriving-in from far-off regions, it always changes-in to fit local conditions. The C-R theory is trying to state how light accomplished this, and what we might have-been missing in experiments done, to date.

NOTE: I had corresponded with this individual earlier, so I have edited this letter a bit more for home-readers who do not have as much of a C-R theory background, or who may not yet have read nearly as much about the C-R theory. I have added-in some additional material for clarification.


Dear {C-R theory responder},

       Thank you for again writing in to the C-R theory. Your question is reasonable, and I’ll try to explain it as I see it. The C-R theory ideas, as in the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, are not accepted by mainstream theories (yet), so the only place I know of to understand this concept is on the C-R theory website.

      I am trying to get the ideas out there, and discussed, and at least, state why I believe the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle might have some valid reasons. Mainstream theories will (grudgingly) accept the local, minor time-rate differences caused by "curvature" or the difference in the strength of gravity.

      One of the few clear references to this property is on sites covering the GPS satellites. By virtue of the satellite’s sitting some 20,200 Km. above earth’s surface, the satellite "gains" about 45 usec. per day (from the higher altitude). This is known-about, and mentioned in the web site. Even though this is the case, each GPS satellite is programmed (from the ground control stations) to “knowingly-miscount” this gain in time and provide a "corrected" time pulse, as if this time gain from gravity (and the time loss from orbiting {relativistically} at a faster speed, thus partially slowing-down time, of about 38.5 usec. per day) never occurred.

      What I’ve never seen covered, discussed, or noticed from anywhere else is: if this minuscule gain of time, [from this very small difference in gravitational curvature], results from a small decrease in “gravity (curvature)” that is KNOWN-ABOUT, this should imply that this same type-of time-gain also occurs everywhere else within this universe, in response to the overall, system-wide gravitational field.

An image of the universe shown as concentric circles

      When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, he "assumed" that there was no preferred reference frame, and that space was isotropic, or that it had exactly the same properties in all directions. What the C-R theory contends is that, if our universe is closed, sealed-off, or fully contained (inside an Active Zone C-R), this means that there MUST BE a (preferred) reference frame, with minimum (or zero) at the center, and with full curvature, complete in every direction, at the outside Schwarzschild radius. This {outside part-of the} Schwarzschild radius would be "invisible" to us, since we are stuck on the inside of the contained-volume, but the effects, with increasing redshift in every direction outward, have been seen.

      “Standard science” attributed the redshift to the Doppler shift from the assumed expansion after "The Big Bang", some 13.7 Billion years ago. The C-R theory says the red shift results from the simple properties of "changing curvature" from within an enclosed-volume of a closed-universe that is the “source” of the red shift we see. From this difference (mistake) results all the wild improbabilities that MUST-BE attributed to an expanding universe {with NO KNOWN extra source of energy to PAY-FOR it}.

      Now to start covering your question, the C-R theory believes that the photon of light is not changed (other than by being warped, bent, or focused into a new direction) by curvature. This means that the photon, after it is emitted, never changes until it is absorbed or re-emitted. It never gains (or loses) additional energy by "falling" in a gravitational field, and it never surrenders energy when climbing-up against a stronger gravitational field.

NOTE: This greatly simplifies our human understanding for how gravity works, and needs NO “outlandish” causative mechanism.

      What the C-R theory is saying is that the photons are "lazy" and do nothing from the influence of gravity (as curvature). What really happens is, as the photon moves from lesser curvature (higher-energy-worth) surroundings, into greater curvature (lesser energy-worth surroundings), the MEASURER (the scientist and his/her equipment) has changed.

      If you take your scientific instruments, and yourself, and climb up a one kilometer hill, you have added more energy to both your body-matter and to that of your equipment (that energy provided courtesy of your muscles, from the food you eat, or from your car, if you drove-up the hill). Both you, and your equipment have “changed” in that process, so later-on, when your equipment does not measure the photon as the same, science has "assumed" it was the photon (and not the measurer’s equipment) that did the actual changing.

      The C-R theory contends that there is no evidence where "light-speed"-light, when intersecting at any angles to another beam of light, changes that “other” light. What is the causative mechanism that "gravity" could use to change the energy-value of each and every photon, as those photons move up and down in changing gravity? Where does the energy come-from, and where then does it go to? {What gains the energy surrendered by a changed photon? Is there also a time-delay “paradox-interval” for that energy-gain, when NOTHING has yet acquired the photon’s energy after it has “surrendered it”.

      It is one thing to change energy values if both the gravity and the light were always travelling exactly parallel to each other for the whole interval of time, but this is not ever the case (or very rarely so).

       HINT: Test this idea and take two cheap LED laser-pointers, and play "Star-Wars" light-sabers with them. Notice that there is no noticeable effect from "colliding" the beams, from intersecting them, from fighting-with them. If this “direct collision” of lightbeams does not affect either one, what makes anyone (at home) think that much-weaker gravity (at a considerably weaker strength than a laser-light) will change the properties of a lightbeam from a brief crossing (or intersecting)?

       The simplest "causative" mechanism is for the photons to do nothing, and not to be changed at all. Thisw IS the option chosen by the C-R theory. It is the measurer that has changed, by "lugging" their equipment’s mass to a different-energy position. When this lugged equipment is again-used as the baseline-standard reference, it is THE REFERENCE STANDARD that has actually changed.

      In my most recent thinking, although I have not yet updated it on the web site, the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle would have light speed changing (or normalizing) “locally”, almost continually as it travelled across the universe. Light might not "wait" until it is intercepted, absorbed, or measured to change-back or conform to a "local-mode", but do so as it journeys around. {Especially light-speed-wise}

       In the current tradition of science, if something cannot be measured, it is said not to occur, or be worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, I do not know of any good way for us, while located here on earth, to measure or verify that light elsewhere in this universe "speeds-along" differently. Light, here in earth’s vicinity, will always normalize to our local velocity.

      I do not think there is any local "trick" we could engage to "fool" light into going at another speed, unless we could "locally adjust-our-spacetime", to change our local level of curvature, bending, or warping. Our current, human-level of technology, does not yet have that capability. Until or unless we could locally modify or modulate our curvature, above and beyond simply “climbing-up” or “falling-down”, we would have to travel elsewhere (and probably very far away, well beyond our solar system) to achieve a level of difference in lightspeed to be detectable and different.

      Current science says, if it cannot be measured (as different), then that difference is not real, or does not exist. It might as well be science fiction or imaginary. My understanding is that the small difference that does occur right here on earth, which is about 1 part in 1016th per meter, is too small for us to detect.

      What the C-R theory must "hope-for" is that some human, someday, will invent a way to detect or change this curvature locally, and to modify it such that we could measure a lightspeed difference. Either that, or find a way to travel-away from earth much faster than light speed, so that we could go elsewhere, make measurements of changes elsewhere, and return-back quickly-enough to report the changes. Will that happen soon enough that mainstream science will accept that difference within the next 50 years? I highly doubt it.

       If “measurability” is necessary, then I would concede that the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle is probably not measurable-enough to accept within my lifetime. That written, many forecast things from theories that the inventors thought would never be detected have come to pass much sooner than expected, due to the immense creativity of other humans, who continually find new areas to manipulate. It is conceivable that some inventor will discover a new method or trick to change (warp) local curvature without having to travel elsewhere.

       In publishing the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, especially the part about stroboscopically "chopping-up" light in the near vacuum of space, vicinities near enough to earth now might not be different enough to measure a lightspeed difference from far-away photons. Additionally, since the furthest-out photons, from the farthest-away, are more likely to occur on a non-continuous, or random packet-by-random-packet mode, they may be too dim, or too occasional, to chop first, then measure.

       In my original thinking about the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, I imagined that photons from far away might still retain their "faster-than-light", or "slower-than-light" speed difference, at least until they passed-through some transparent medium, like glass or plastic, on an orbiting spacecraft above most of earth’s atmosphere. More recently, I am wondering if the photons more gradually adapt, to behave just as other local photons around them. Do the photons "sense" the local levels of curvature as they travel about? Do travelling photons ignore the level of background curvature that exists until the photon is absorbed? Then it is re-emitted at a lesser-but-local speed of light travelling in plastic or glass, or travelling through earth’s atmosphere, if it is measured here. Has that process, where we humans measure light in our labs, under our normal living conditions; inevitably changed light, the ultimate "conformer"?

       From a theory standpoint, it might have been better never to mention the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, except that the C-R theory "needs" the local difference in lightspeed as a way to account-for the energy difference, and to explain what is really happening, or how "gravity" works.

       This may be a very long answer to your shorter question, but I may post it in the blog section, too, and wanted to go over this specific area to highlight the difference expected by the C-R theory. I am now leaning more towards the answer that as every photon locally "passes-through" our earth-vicinity, it is locally adapted to conform to our local lightspeed. When I initially formulated the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, I may have been more of the mindset that the photon would still possess the lightspeed-characteristics of the place where it originated-from, and only adapt locally AFTER being absorbed, or after passing through some clear but transparent item.

       The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle is kind-of an attempt to explain: How can lightspeed "change" or be different elsewhere, when we (here on earth) ALWAYS measure light from elsewhere at "our-local" lightspeed? The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle is the C-R theory’s answer to: Why does this lightspeed difference NOT show-up when we try to measure it? As "individuals", we would like to believe that we would always stand for our own principles, regardless how others around us might adapt to blend in. The C-R theory tries to show that light, on the other hand, always "wimps-out" locally, gives-in to conformity, and tries to blend in.

       That I know-of, only the C-R theory NEEDS this lightspeed difference to "help-to" account-for the expected (and measured) energy difference seen in light coming from elsewhere. We get the energy gain (as a blueshift) in light coming from all portions of the volume around the "Great Attractor", but see an energy loss, as a redshift, for most other areas in the universe, increasing in value as one gets further-away from earth.

       Conventional theory believes this redshift is due to the "Hubble Constant" expanding the universe (with the local exception of the "Great Attractor"). Conventional science has trouble measuring this "Hubble Constant", or of getting a clear number that many methods of measurement can agree upon.

       The C-R theory maintains that this number is "fictional" or non existent, and that what we are seeing has nothing to do with the "preposterous idea" that our universe is expanding, accelerating, and probably "filling-with more mass" as it does so.

       The simplest way to account for ALL of the observations is that our universe is CLOSED, contained, but not isotropic (the same everywhere). Rather, our universe is non-uniform, but enclosed, and that the matter-inside varies it’s energy-value by position. I’ll refer to a one page pdf file showing this C-R theory view here. Just click on the PDF icon to display the file.

       (I will hope it works sending it in e-mail format, if not, let me know, and I’ll send you the PDF file as a separate attached file. I do not see the icon, so I'll just attach a PDF file. Open it when you come to this section.)

       I hope this helps you understand what I’m seeing when I describe how I believe our universe operates. I kind-of apologize that I do not know of any quick test we could do here on earth to determine if this is actually so. Someday, humans will either go elsewhere, or find others (civilizations or colonies) who have gone there. Until then, this is the best I can suggest.

       It is possible that some C-R theory blog reader might be smart-enough to devise some test that could prove (or demonstrate) that this might actually be the case. Since conventional theory does not believe anything like this exists, they certainly aren’t looking-for any way to test it.

       I always try to offer to any responders-in that I believe there may be huge amounts of undiscovered treasures (of the theoretical type, not of the financial type) still available. If the theory is true, I expect that there are many areas where I have not fully imagined all aspects that could be derived from the C-R theory ideas. I welcome additional thinkers, and I constantly hope that someone else can find things I have overlooked. There are always new phenomenon announced every month or week, and most of them seem to be very compatible with the C-R theory.

       If the C-R theory is right, I would expect that others, too, might find new aspects to it, and new applications where it can provide new insights. If it is wrong, there is a much lesser possibility that something significant can be added that would still be useful to mainstream science.

       If you had any comments on whether my previous letter was helpful to you, or cleared-up some of what I am trying to give insights into, that would be good. If you still feel confused, or need time to work-over the C-R theory ideas in your mind, I can certainly understand that, too.

       The ideas from the C-R theory are definitely different from that which is accepted by standard thinking. I know of no other areas where you can learn of these same thoughts or even find them discussed or considered. If you can accept them, and they are of use to you, and that helps you to understand more of what is occurring in our universe, that is my goal.

       If you cannot accept the C-R theory arguments for now, you are certainly not alone. I will continue to try to share these ideas with anyone who will listen, and hope that some will find these ideas of use to them.

       I appreciate the opportunity to try to share the C-R theory insights, and to help others to consider the ideas as viable. In the years that the C-R theory has been on-line, I have not had anyone else actually state that they had READ most of it. I expected an uphill struggle to get the C-R theory views across, and to get them taken seriously. If these views are right (or partly-so), they will eventually gain popularity. If I can convince some readers, on a one-by-one basis, that there is merit to these ideas, it helps me to repeat the process, over and over.

       I may post a good part of this letter into the blog section, as I do want the opportunity to discuss the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle again, and your question probably represents thoughts by others who have not yet written-in.

       I have read elsewhere, that there are something like a billion photons per every hadron (like the proton or neutron) in this universe. It seems nearly impossible to imagine that every photon travelling about is constantly re-adjusting it’s energy (and momentum, too) in every gravitational field it encounters. I am much more inclined, now, to understand the whole process better, using the C-R theory to state that the photon does not change as it travells, it is the observer who changes. THAT process I CAN understand, quite easily.

       Please write-in again if you have more areas where you would like clarification.

       Jerry Reynard

      NOTE: Since sending the letter, I found one article which was very interesting, about how the phenomonon known as stellar aberration. This linked article claimed that the amount of aberration varies because of a change in the speed of light, further away from earth. (Include link here)

      A different, C-R theory take is that it may be an indication of the actual “bending” of spacetime by curvature, known about (but not as curvature) around the 1890's. There is both a twice yearly aberration, and a lesser aberration twice each day. There is a very slight, but measurable change in the measured position of observed stars, technically, an amount that the telescope must be re-aimed to point exactly at the star.

      While I have read many articles on this phenomenon, almost every one treats it as a defect (or phenomenon) that changes the telescope, and not just the “measured position of the star, itself. It may be more-related to the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle discussed above, about the true nature of light, and how we actually measure it’s speed here on earth. Although the phenomenon is well-known, I believe there may be more “wiggle-room” on the nature of the actual cause of the change.

      One of the more interesting ironies from this is, there was a huge newspaper coverage of a brief “observed effect” from the 1919 eclipse expedition by Huntington, but the stellar aberration issue, which affected many more stars, and was known-about 30 years earlier was “ignored”.

      (I have simply read articles about the issue of stellar aberration, but I have never done first hand measurements of them on devices sensitive enough, or large enough, to make the measurements. This addition to the blog is just remarking about the true nature of the beast, so to speak.)

      New articles I’ve read recently,

The turntable experiments measuring light-speed/ether bias.

The LHC is gearing-up for a record energy-level in head to head particle collisions.

Astronomy magazine has an article about the connection between galaxies and supermassive Black-Holes C-R. A C-R theory spin would be that the central Black-Hole C-R is both the source of some-of the material from the galaxy, and the central stabilizer of the system. The age of most galaxies is many times older than current theories suspect.

      Astronomy magazine reports that scientists have recently measured the magnetic field of another sun-like star. This makes it likely that many more stars have properties very similar to our sun. If so, the C-R theory would conclude that most, if not all stars, may be powered by central internal Black-Holes C-R. That means that there is much more likely to be high-level electrical currents, magnetic fields, and electromagnetic interaction going-on within galaxies than mainstream science ever suspected.

      As I alluded-to in an earlier month’s blog, science is looking for dark energy as the cause of the galaxies holding-together, but they’re completely ignoring the indications that there are already enormous amounts of electromagnetic energy flowing-around inside galaxies. HINT: It is more-than-enough to easily explain why the galaxy’s stars don’t simply spin-off. No dark energy is ever needed, just observational science. Second hint: Since electromagnetic interactions are some 1040th power stronger per atom for non-neutral atoms, you need far-fewer of them to be charged and achieve successful results.

Discover magazine (Issue__ ) had some articles on really wild thinking, stuff that should make the C-R theory seem much more reasonable in direct comparison.


HELP WANTED (Unpaid, but appreciated): The C-R theory is looking for interested home readers to advocate both the C-R theory ideas and challenges, or to at least, bring them up in discussion groups. I would like to get the C-R theory considered more seriously as an “alternative explanation” for some of the observations in this universe which do not seem to support current theories. All of the C-R theory downloads are free, so cost should not be an issue.

      Checking my web-site’s statistics, a little bit over ½ Gigabyte of material has been downloaded in the last 3 months. While that’s not huge by many sites’ standards, I do appreciate those who have downloaded and then looked-at the C-R theory’s materials. I don’t mind if you THEN reject the ideas, as long as you have been made aware of the C-R theory’s claims. If you read any articles in the upcoming years, you can’t help but be aware of the electrically-based ideas suggested by the C-R theory that have a way of being found, in abundance. I am counting on the long-term strategy that when science finally notices the enormous quantities of free electrons found coming from Black-Holes C-R, and put that together with the outrageous quantities of excess positive charges to be found in thousands-of-years-old supernova remnants, some of the C-R theory’s readers will put “two and two together”, and remember that they read about abundant electrical activity occurrences here, and almost nowhere else.

Saturday, July 03, 2010 8:16:23 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)  #    Disclaimer  |  Comments [1]  |