I would like to thank all of those incoming readers who re-visit this site. That suggests to me that you are interested in learning more about the C-R theory views, or you are at least willing to consider the new ideas advocated here.

I received an e-mail from an old friend, from my Navy days, stating that he had become a believer in the C-R theory. That is something I would like to hear more often, that I am starting to make a difference in the views of some readers, against an almost overwhelming tide of different ideas in the textbooks.

I told that friend that I thought I had made good progress, and that the last few years had been very kind to the C-R theories, evidence wise.  I supposed, initially (in 1979) that the C-R theory might take 50 years or more to start to become accepted, and only 32 years have passed since I first arrived at the new ways of thinking.  When one considers that virtually all of the textbooks and teachers start-off rejecting the C-R theory's starting position, [that Black-Holes ^C-R consume the heavier nucleus (with it's positive charges)] before they even try to look for a viable alternative; that is progress, albeit more slowly than I would prefer.

I have blogged quite a bit in these last two years about the differences in the C-R theory, and those blogs are archived on the side column to the right of the newest blog. I wanted to try to craft shorter blogs, more often, this year.

Briefly, I just came upon an interesting story, today, that some scientists just found some enormous, short-duration flares coming from the Crab Nebula.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110106145432.htm That region had been thought to be very stable, and science thought it held no great surprises.  Those short-duration flares had electrons accelerated up to at least 10 peta-electron-volts (10 quadrillion eV). According to that article, that is 1000 times as energetic as our best, most powerful earth-bound particle accelerator, the LHC, can accomplish.  They also stated that is 15 orders of magnitude more energetic than normal light.

For the C-R theory, this is yet another outrageously high-energy source of electrons, traceable to a specific astronomical object.  Whatever the source, it is also highly variable, and capable of very rapid changes.

Another (unrelated) new thought that did occur to me was that, if the newly-discovered excess-electron-filled lobes above and below our galaxy's center bulge are filled with the energy of about 100,000 supernovas, that is almost 4 supernovas-worth of excess energy for every visitor (so far) to this C-R theory web-site.  When I think in terms like that (positively) rather than negatively, like trying to change the remaining 7 billion skeptics in this world, one by one, I can be amazed by the progress.

The real question is: How can I change how those not-yet-converted [my target audience], think about Black-Holes ^C-R (vs generic black holes), almost singlehandedly?

Technology is improving almost daily, and astronomers are finding-out about new ways to measure the environment in space in ways that were never anticipated, before. That science is continually finding conditions almost exactly like (only) the C-R theory would expect is something that most theories can only dream about, but are rarely rewarded-with.

Conditions like electrical charges and magnetic fields that should be ruled-out by common textbook understanding of black hole operation (like assuming electrical neutrality) and the expected collapse into a "non-understandable" singularity, have hamstrung conventional scientists thought processes.  This has blinded them to not even thinking about the possibility of trying to LOOK-AT the conditions found around Black-Holes ^C-R first, and THEN awterwards, to make-up their minds about how the Black-Holes ^C-R actually operate, based-upon the observed evidence.

Since we cannot simply visit a Black-Hole ^C-R, and do experiments nearby {or inside them (*except for our universe, here and now)}, we are stuck entirely using tools operating from earth (or relatively nearby) to test ALL of our conclusions.

I would agree with most scientists, that, by THEIR books, the C-R theory IS WRONG [and impossible, too], but I differ in the opinion that it is those books that may be in error, rather than the C-R theory, if the evidence has any relevance in the matter. There is entirely too much electrical activity, with too many electrical imbalances in too many locations, for an electrically neutral universe to make sense.

A small problem with the Electrical Universe type theories is that they lack a causative mechanism.  They simply suspect that the electrical currents come from "somewhere else", and continue circulating around.  The question to them is: Why?

Of the theories that I know-of, only the C-R theory has a viable causative mechanism to explain where these observed electrical charges and magnetic fields come from.  Conventional theory can only state that, as far as they know, nothing like that should be occurring, so there is no perceived need to look for or test for electrical items.

With the increase in knowledge, science may start to catch-up to where the C-R theory has already been, when it comes to explaining the WHY of things that are seen. If the C-R theory can help to guide others to show where to look, what to notice, and what to observe, then how to understand the processes going on.  It may make more sense to learn from someone who predicted these spare electrical charges beforehand, rather than learning from those who deny the possibility of their existence.

30 years ago, there was very little evidence of excess electrons in the common literature.  The multiple positive ionizations in thousand-year-old supernova remnants were not known about, either.  Way back then, we did not have Google and Bing and other search engines that we could type in phrases or search items with, we had to physically trek-out to a suitably-stocked library, and hunt through stacks of books or magazines to find the things that we can get in a few seconds now.

[For those who did not experience it, it was not all bad, either.  By looking through stacks of magazines and books, one often noticed other seemingly irrelevant things that were not in the target search, that might actually be useful or interesting.  That is how I encountered many of the diverse items that I somewhat remember from those earlier days.  I did not take extensive notes way back then (and still do not do so now, most of the time), but I do remember that I read about these phenomena somewhere, and it is easier to weave those items in to my mind's paradigms.]

I even encountered one of the next key items from the C-R theory, in Discover magazines top 100 science items of 2010.  Mainstream science is finally considering that space may not be identical in all directions [or isotropic], but that conditions change from place to place.  That is still not quite the same as recognizing that, if we live in a closed universe, that imposes a preferred reference frame over us, which mandates different conditions, imposed upon different locations, by their relative position.

If you can connect that with the idea that, if gravitational curvature changes the local conditions of matter, by location, there may be SYSTEM-WIDE conditions that can be measured, noticed, and connected-in to one's overall mental picture of our universe. {If you cannot, or will not do so, you WILL FAIL to understand the C-R theory, guaranteed.}

The C-R theory contends that you, the home-reader, can start to re-understand our universe, if you are willing to make some very simple changes to your common thinking.

Some new thoughts for 2011: I was reading an article about our sun's heliopause, or the location where our sun's protective bubble from the solar wind dies out, and the nature of outer space (beyond the sun's influence) takes over.  NASA is monitoring the Voyager satellites as they continue on their journey out of our solar system.

It occurred to me that, if our sun is actually emitting huge quantities of excess electrons on a continual basis, and that mainstream science has no clue that this is happening, the influence on the positively-charged cosmic rays coming from beyond our solar system could actually be accelerated inward.  In addition, there might be some other measurable influences that could be noticed or checked-on.

The article I read said that the sun's heliopause did extend out further than "science" initially expected.  Could it be because there is an added influence that has not only not been expected, but that has never been looked-for, either? I suspect that some evidence, either way, might already exist.  Since the thought just occurred to me this year, it is something new. ("New items" is one area where home-readers might be aware of data I have not yet encountered, or some at home may think of new ways to test or challenge existing dogma.) One of the reasons I mention it is that new ideas still pop into my head, every so often, and the "final Version" of the C-R theory is not yet "set in concrete".

Now that we have some spacecraft going beyond this heliopause, will observations be made that give science the idea that they have indeed missed what space beyond the sun's influence is really like? At least, we will have data from a new vantage point to consider, which may be "unfiltered" by a large bubble of excess electrons as well as a huge magnetic-field bubble.

Another idea I have been considering for quite a while suggests a need to revise (refine) my initial ideas about generic Black-Holes ^C-R and the equality of the turn-off process, or nothingness [the over-the-speed-of-light escape velocity region].  If I consider Black-Holes ^C-R at various locations within our full (closed) universe, I might need to factor-in a correction or a gradient factor.

Where this gets most interesting is: if that is the case for Black-Holes ^C-R INSIDE our universe, is something like that also the case for our universe, if our universe is one of many, many more smaller Black-Holes ^C-R located somewhere inside an even larger closed-off universe? If so, this would establish an external (outside of our universe) based bias on the inner contents of this universe.  I have read that just such a flow or temperature bias may have been located in regions far-away from earth, but within this universe.  The appearance has been interpreted that the focus of this modulation seems to lie outside of our universe's observable boundaries. [See dark flow as a topic.]

Of course, I have no clue as to where inside an even larger universe our universe would be located.  Nearer the center, scattered to the outskirts of the farthest edges, or somewhere inbetween.  That I remember, I have not yet blogged upon that topic, since it would introduce even more contention into an already contentious situation.  Since dark flow is a topic of current interest, I decided to state that the C-R theory does have an opinion, and a C-R theory "spin" to comment upon.

I read about the topic of dark flow, which mainstream science is trying to fit into a hidden-universe slightly interacting with our universe [or parallel-to it], while possibly co-existing in the same spatial locations with us, something-like multiplexing broadcast radio stations, where many "sub-channels" share the same frequency and use the same antenna, but co-existing peacefully with little or no co-interference with each other.

The C-R theory "spin" on this idea is that our universe may be a sub-part of a much larger whole [as a little portion inside-of a much-fuller system], rather than one-of-many, kind-of overlaid upon each other, in separate-but-distinct layers, something like what book pages act like, with each page laying upon each next consecutive page in a book.

What I am trying to share is that my concepts from the C-R theory are still evolving, and I am still accumulating new ideas with every passing year.  I believe that I might be trying to see an even bigger picture of the whole, well before mainstream science sees even the smaller picture {from the C-R theory vantage point}.

I am trying not to be too dogmatic to my initial concepts, and yet to be flexible enough to accommodate the newest findings.  If the C-R theory is at all wrong, there should be abundant evidence just laying-about to show that it is incorrect.  When I search, what I keep finding is the types of "outrageous anomalies" that only the C-R theory could use and love.  It is possible that I have on "selected blinders", where I only see what I want to see.  That is why I am trying to share these expectations, on line, and publicly, of where to look, what to test-for, and why to expect it.  That way, if others find these same things, too, then it is not just me.

What I hope to offer is for home-readers to take the C-R theory and put it to your own tests.  Look for evidence which seems to support it, and look for observations that should rule it out.  Do not just use the items that I suggest, but look for similar items that are already known about and reported in the existing literature, and brand-new items too.  Both types-of items should be available and freely announced to anyone with an internet connection.

If conventional theory is true, and the C-R theory is totally wrong, one would think it should be easy to find abundant evidence that it is wrong, and hard to find evidence that would seem to back it up.  Just the opposite is what I regularly find.  I find little or nothing that would disprove it, and many items that seem to need the C-R theory's help to make good-sense of them.

If only one or two items on the entire internet favored the C-R theory, I would be skeptical.  For the last 30 years or more, I regularly find items that seem to agree with the C-R theory that there is some mighty interesting electrical behavior in almost every direction.  It is conceivable that I am deliberately missing evidence that disproves the C-R theory, or not looking in the right places.

I invite all my home-readers to send in links to articles that describe any real observations (not just a new theory of what SHOULD be happening) that indicate the C-R theory is wrong.  Surely, someone out there can come up with items that go against what I have described.  The universe is big enough that something should be known about that could easily determine that the C-R theory ideas are wrong.

If anyone else out there finds nothing that seems to disprove it, but many items that seem to support it, I would also appreciate your findings.  Again, I am reminded of my favorite Chico Marx quote (and he is not often quoted) "Who are you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?"

Please check the evidence and the findings in books, magazines, and web sites, and see if what is described matches what the C-R theory claims should be expected.

To paraphrase from another famous quote, "We all know your theory is crazy.  The real question is: Is it crazy ENOUGH?" That question has never been asked of the C-R theory, that I could find.

Look for indications of excess electrical currents, intense magnetic fields, polarized em-band (electromagnetic) waves, from radio, infrared, light, uv, at least up, into the X-rays.  Something [with energy] must be polarizing those waves.  Look for excess electrons around feeding Black-Holes ^C-R, and look for excess positive charges in very old supernova remnants.  Only if you find ALL of those items, simultaneously, should you consider the C-R theory to be vindicated (or supported). {Hint: If they weren't found in abundance, would I tout that as refuting support or proof?}

I would like to start covering single topics more thoroughly, starting in my next blog, unless nature intervenes and provides some fresh irresistible new evidence for the C-R theory's correctness.  I would like to cover ideas like curvature, a closed universe, the properties of the C-R theory brand Black-Holes ^C-R, the real causes of redshift and blueshift, and how to exploit the differences in matter and energy to recycle, refresh and renew matter and energy, and restore entropy to a lower value using simple new ideas.

(If I am wrong, I WOULD like to know it, so I don't keep making a fool of myself.)

I look-forward to soon blogging again, and trying to share more fresh aspects from the C-R theory ideas with anyone willing to listen (or read) about it.  Thank you for visiting this web-site.

Jerry A. Reynard, January 11, 2011