I am preparing this blog slightly before our official 25,000th visitor arrives. It may be
on line by the before that happens. Technically, the first 6 months this web-site was on
line, there was no working counter, so the real count would be higher. I also regularly
re-visit this site to check-up on it, so the real count (discounted for many of my visits)
may be closer to a truer count of visitors.
Let me state that the C-R theory views are not yet mainstream and are too different
to be quickly adopted. I expected significant opposition and disbelief from incoming
first-time visitors. (More disbelief than true opposition, though.) I will try to "sell" my
ideas to you (for free, though) thru this web-site.
I will try to explain why I now believe gravitational curvature "causes" gravity, rather
than the other way around. That new understanding is quite new, and very different
from the mainstream ideas. Most current scientists are taught the Newtonian views,
then given the newer views from Einstein. What I will try to do is to show where each
left-off, and where improvements can be made.
The C-R theory is primarily non-mathematical, and based upon situational
reasoning. While I strongly support teaching and learning the formulas, readers should
be advised that they are only guidelines, at best. They sometimes make crude
simplifications or approximations, and often miss finer points that can be caught by
simple observation.
I remember that when I was growing-up, the books of the time stated that
aeronautical engineers way-back-then could show by their formulas that a bee could not
fly. Fortunately, the bees did not read those books, and flew anyway.
Nowdays, the formulas have been revised enough, allowing for mini-vortexes and
eddy currents that show the bee can indeed fly. My point is that the formulas science
derives most of it's understanding from may miss details by glossing-over the real world
situation and over-simplifying.
A simple over-reliance on formulas gives most scientists now the idea that inside a
conventional black hole matter cannot resist the "pull" of gravity, and collapses into a
singularity. I have several problems with that reasoning.
By a NEW understanding of gravitational curvature, it should be simple to
understand that, at the center of any mass, the net curvature is always MINIMUM at the
center. As one proceeds outward from the center, in every direction (for a spherical-circular mass), the curvature increases steadily until you reach anywhere at the outer
edge.
NOTE: I can make the above statement untrue by making the mass a flat sheet, say
1 cm thick, but 1 km square, or by changing the density of the mass non-linearly. Most
planetary masses and larger objects will be spherical.
If this is the case, then curvature should only affect matter 'the most' where the
curvature is the greatest.
Since the "layered-structure" of a sphere would only have curvature "the most" at
the outer edges, this region is the only place where the MAXIMUM EFFECT should be
found. This suggests a Neutral Zone C-R, or a thin, shell-like region, immediately inside
the Schwarzschild radius of a Black-Hole C-R, as the only part of a Black-Hole C-R where
the "greater-than-the-speed-of-light escape velocity" will be in effect.
Inside this Neutral Zone C-R should still be an entire sphere-of-matter which remains
active in real-time. This sphere of matter also provides a place-holder, a volume limit
(on the inside) and establishes a "reference-frame" which does not change with time.
This inner region is sealed-off, closed-up, isolated, and insulated from communication
with the outside world, but it is otherwise unaffected.
HINT: The universe we live in has exactly the same properties (but on a much
larger scale) that matter in this "closed-off" region should display. From earth, there is
an increasing redshift in all directions (towards the outside), and increasing blue-shift,
up to a point, in one direction only, (The "Great Attractor").
If the above scenario is in effect now, this results in many simplifications to our
understanding of this universe.
It explains why our universe, with it's enormous size, looks like it has "nearly
enough" matter to close off this universe. [Because it is exactly closed-off.]
The redshifts seen in our universe are almost all from a slowed-down time-base,
instead-of as a result of expansion (a Doppler shift). The blue-shift, seen in the
direction of "The Great Attractor", comes from matter there actually running faster than
here on earth.
Since our universe is stable, fixed in volume, perfectly stable, {not in imminent
danger of collapsing}, the C-R theory needs no anomalous source of enough energy to
continually expand our universe at an expanding rate. That means that Conservation of
Energy, which used to be a "Gold-standard" principle of science and physics, is back
again, restored to it's former glory.
It also means that our universe never started-off from a nearly-impossible-to-understand singularity, and neither a causal mechanism or any explanation for why it
started that way, is needed.
If the above is true, the C-R theory also does not need the anomaly of hyper-inflation, to explain why our universe looks so similar in all directions. Our universe is
now perfectly at equilibrium in all directions, because it always has been at equilibrium,
and every location does constantly communicate-with every other location inside our
universe*. (*The exception being that matter inside our universe does not communicate
with any Neutral Zone C-R inside any Black-Hole C-R.)
Some Retro-Obvious Principles: {simple ideas that Science has not yet noticed}
I also wanted to write about some retro-obvious principles that I believe this
universe follows, that are now obvious from the C-R theory, but which mainstream
science has not yet thought-of, or accepted.
The Black-Hole C-R consumes mass BY MASS, sorting between the lighter, more
energetic electrons [letting them escape], and selecting the more massive protons and
neutrons for consumption, guiding them in, by their mass.
It is no accident that there is more-than an 1800 times mass-ratio difference
between the protons and the electrons. Nature finds this property ESSENTIAL, and
could not function properly (or did not want to function) with any lesser ratio-value.
The region (as a volume) immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius is the ONLY
portion of the Black-Hole C-R where the escape velocity exceeds the speed-of-light.
Nature "exploits" this prohibition to prevent any radiation, communication, or interaction
at the speed-of-light. The speed-of-light travel-ban also "TRUMPS" the Heisenberg
Uncertainty Principle to prohibit "internal-leakage".
Also, the reason that nature has two different "inverse-square" forces, gravity and
electricity, (where their strength falls-off proportional-to the squared-value of the
distance) is because Nature NEEDS two different forces, because they behave
differently* [*by the C-R theory]. The C-R theory claims that their operating mechanism
is totally different. [The two "forces" are not reconcilable.]
Whereas gravity is effectively coupled-out from a Black-Hole C-R, the C-R theory
states that heat, light, any electromagnetic energy or knowledge of electrical charge, or
the value of the internal spin remains "trapped inside". NOTE: This is not a catastrophe,
but a great tool. Nature uses this property-difference to restore entropy, to re-concentrate
matter and energy using the Black-Hole C-R, then catastrophically release
them at some later time. Because nothing can ever "radiate-out" from the Neutral Zone
C-R, until something sufficiently disturbs it (and inactivates the conditions that turn-off
matter and energy), the process is 100% thermodynamically efficient.
This also means that no Black-Hole C-R can or will ever release Hawking radiation, or
selectively choose-and-eat from newly created matter-pairs outside the Black-Hole C-R.
The Black-Hole's C-R entropy is not expressed-at, or limited-by the surface area of
the event horizon. The event horizon is a "fictional creation", or a mental construct, and
has no 'real" properties that can be observed to understand anything about the Black-Hole C-R.
The C-R theory recommends not using the term, or trying to understand the event
horizon. Attempting to understand the Black-Hole C-R by observing the event horizon will
simply mislead or confuse the average reader and the dedicated professional, too.
In short, EVERYTHING you need-to-know, or want to know about the Black-Hole C-R
takes place immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius, out of sight, and impossible to
test with any current technology. The recommended way to test these strategies is to
look for the indications that something like this is going-on.
The C-R theory ideas on curvature causing gravity also imply that information is
never destroyed, although knowledge of that information is "put to bed for a while". The
huge difference is that the C-R theory is trying to show how nature accomplishes the
trick of re-extracting this information (most of the matter and energy that ever went into
the Black-Hole C-R, minus the amount that remains trapped inside, in the Active Zone C-R,
further inside of the Neutral Zone C-R.
If you want to know: is Nature fond of Black-Holes C-R, just notice the sheer number
of them in this universe. This "implies" {but does not prove} that nature finds them
incredibly useful.
The C-R theory is now claiming that: Before the very first Black-Hole C-R ever ate the
proton and the neutron for the very first time, that nature had the plan worked-out,
perfected, and set-up, to recover the matter and energy that would be "eaten". Nature
NEVER faced the dilemma of: "Dang, I have all of this mass and energy swallowed by
these conventional black holes, everywhere in this universe. Now, what am I going to
do to fix it?" (Nature speaking or thinking here)
Rather, it is the very nature of the mass-difference in "our favorite" sub-atomic
particles, when eaten by the Black-Hole C-R, that SETS-UP the ability of Nature to
restore the system, and keep it recycling forever*. (*Can anyone think of a couple-of
good theory names to describe this recycling situation within this universe?)
ANALOGY: The Black-Holes C-R do for our universe something-like what the air-pump does for the small aquarium. It keeps the local environment fresh, cycling-along
the matter within, and makes it more "livable" for those living things, stuck inside this
"closed-system". {Just on a much larger scale, for a much longer time, and without the
system collapsing or spoiling if the AC power fails, as can happen in a small aquarium.}
By simple observation, science has learned that nature will start an attempt to
recycle (or harvest) dead bodies or vegetation within 15 minutes, if not sooner.
Standard theory states that the conventional black hole might need to wait up to 10100
years to have Hawking radiation kick-in to high gear. Although not normally recoverable
within 15 minutes, the C-R theory maintains that Black-Holes C-R are natures "tools" to
"kick-start" start the recovery process much sooner.
The C-R theory claims that the same nature that can rarely hold-off 15 minutes to
start the attempt to recover usefulness from a dead body (or vegetation) does not have
the patience to wait "nearly forever" BEFORE attempting any recovery of a much
greater quantity of matter and energy left over in a star or a galaxy. The principle IS the
same.
No Black-Hole C-R should be seen (or found to) to eat another Black-Hole C-R.
Every Black-Hole C-R is already: matter at it's lowest-possible gravitational energy.
That "lowest-energy state" cannot be lowered any further by being eaten again by a
second Black-Hole C-R.
If two Black-Holes C-R tried to merge, it would be more akin to two ice cubes at
absolute zero (temperature-wise) merging. There would be no "Newtonian value"
gravitational energy releases from the two huge masses at a separating-distance, rather
it would be more akin to expecting two sleeping people to begin-trying to argue with
each other, while science is trying to "listen-in" on the fireworks. [A non-event]
HINT: This means that the expected gravitational disruptions science expects to find
from "merging Black-Holes C-R" should not be present, and will not be found, regardless
how sensitive the proposed detectors become.
The C-R theory claims that when science builds these exquisitely-sensitive
gravitational-wave detectors, a null result should be found. We will not find universe-wide perturbations shaking the fabric of space-time. It will be almost as exciting as
watching paint dry {very, very boring}.
This "Change in Expectations" shows why the C-R theory is one of the few places
EXPECTING to find no significant emissions of energy (or disruptions of spacetime)
released by "merging Black-Holes C-R". This comes about from observing the possible
merger through a curvature-based framework, and not from "Newtonian dynamics"
based on two huge masses separated by a measurable distance.
The gravitational "energy difference" between merged and separate Black-Holes C-R
is more equivalent to measuring the energy "released" when adding-together two
ZEROS.
Think of the adage: "two nothings in - one nothing out" to imagine the proposed
merger. No overall benefit comes to either party, and no advantages emerge from the
merger.
If BOTH of the merging masses are already at their lowest-possible-gravitational
energy, then merging does nothing. The expected "fireworks" are duds.
My notes on some recent magazine articles:
Some very interesting articles in magazines recently attracted my attention. The
current issue of Science News [October 23, 2010] has an editorial titled "Seeking subtle
simplicity in science's complexities", looking-for very simple answers which have so far
been missed. The Retro-Obvious points listed above ALL should fit-into that mold. (I
probably will not write-in to them and make ALL the claims above, to preserve some
possible future credibility when I sense an opportunity where the C-R theory may be
able to help science understand things in a new way.
There is an article in the November, 2010 Astronomy magazine about powerful jets
spewing from an "average sized" Black-Hole C-R. The Black-Hole C-R covered in this
article was in the galaxy NGC 7793, the outer regions of that galaxy. This Black-Hole C-R
is actively eating some object. It is producing an expanding bubble, already 1000 light
years across, and expanding at 620,000 mph, or 1 million km/hr. The two jets shot out
of the Black-Hole C-R are enormous.
I wonder if anyone has a theory that can explain what might be "light-enough" and
separatable-enough to allow two high-speed jets to appear, and to hold together?
HINT: I wonder if ELECTRONS are light-enough that they could be sorted by mass and
then freed from a Black-Hole C-R as left-overs?
An article in an earlier issue a few months back of Astronomy magazine mentioned
magnetars. The really surprising thing about them is their enormous magnetic fields.
Some magnetars have their field strength estimated around 500-800 trillion Gauss, up
to one quadrillion Gauss. What is most interesting about this gigantic number is just
how convenient it might be for the C-R theory to explain, if a supernova event indeed
freed-up (from a neutralized, shut-down, insulated state) enormous quantities of positive
charges (protons, with extra neutrons and photons released at the same time, for good
measure). These moving electrical charges should produce a correspondingly-large
magnetic field.
Scientists on earth have achieved magnetic fields around 1 million Gauss (it may be
higher by now, I'll check on it and revise it if I find a significantly higher amount).
Conventional theory is more-or-less baffled by any natural process that could create
such an astronomical number (literally, astronomical, in this case).
Gee, I wonder if anyone has a theory which could provide a REASONABLE
explanation as to the source of this large-of a magnetic field, from a supernova remnant.
{A great guess would be the C-R theory, since that is what I am touting in this blog.}
The C-R theory is one of the few theories that EXPECTS large numbers of positive
charges to be released at a supernova. If the interested reader (you) wishes to check
randomly, look for the number of multiple-positively-ionized positive charged ions in
supernova remnants, from supernova at least 1000 years old. (The older, and the more
ionized, the better.)
Here is a link to a PDF listing of a soft X-ray source. The chart on the third page
lists ions at least +5 and higher. Notice that this supernova is over 3000 years old, yet
is still includes all of the multiple-ions listed.
If the skeptical reader still thinks the C-R theory is not on the right track, my next
blog will re-address the list of electrically-based phenomenon from October 2009's blog,
where I mentioned a large list of the known phenomenon that hint strongly about the
electrical nature of our universe.
(The blog celebrating our 24,000th visitor was to have made it on-line by now, but I
am still polishing it up a bit more. This current blog (pun intended) will suggest at least
one topic covered on my next blog.)
Thank you for visiting this site, and please look around at the many items available
for free download. The side of the blog column should have thumbnail sketches of
many of the items you can look-at. Even if you look at them just to laugh at my ideas, I
can at least plant a seed (of knowledge) that might germinate later-on.
Jerry Reynard
October 25, 2010