September 2013 Milestone, over 100,000 visitors, and new comments

September 2013 blog, and a major milestone of 100,000 visitors is already here

I would welcome our visitors, and thank them for the increasing success level in presenting these arguments to make the case for the C-R theory.  By the time this blog goes on-line, we have already had our 101,000th visitor.

I was recently looking at the files I wrote at the time of our 25,000th visitor, around October 2010, and it took from February 2006 to get to that milestone.  After our "free" (to me) web site, at Geocities closed down, my webmaster stated that if I paid for the web-site, there would be no more annoying pop-up ads distracting our readers as they came on board.

If I had known long ago how successful it would become, now, I might have invested some money, way back then, to make the Geocities site a paid site, meaning add-free, and things might have gone much better.  Back in those days, we had a much higher Google ranking in more search-engine categories. I suspect that was because, "way back then", some actual "human being" did the ranking, or evaluating, manually, and whoever that was must have recognized and/or liked our originality and humor.

Nowadays, with the cold, impersonal commercialization, and higher evaluation of how much revenue they can rake in from incoming visitor’s traffic, (by an unthinking, non-sentimental computer-ranking-algorithm), this site’s ranking in most of those search categories is far, far lower.  At least, we now have many more years behind us, doggedly established on the web – still making the same case.  I would hope that the far greater daily visitor numbers we are achieving now are, at least partly because of the consistent evidence nature provides, with phenomena only the C-R theory could like, in existing reports.

If the number of visits to this site was based solely upon my "qualifications", or my "book learning" alone, without the weight of the observational evidence from the real-world, achieving 100,000 visitors in any length of time would be unthinkable.  I believe that many of the visits are return visits, with curious readers freely partaking again of the serious (and various) ideas presented only here. [I have offered these ideas to everyone, for free, for re-posting, but I do not know how effective that attempt has been at spreading these ideas more widely around the world.]

Just August 29th, a new study based on over 3 million seconds of observation time has determined that the large Black-Hole C-R at our galaxy’s center, called Sagittarius A star [Sgr A*] is a messy eater, and it spits out as much as 99% of it’s food.

What is really new here is that both science and the C-R theory are finding-out that very hot, energetic gas can and does also escape quite easily from a Black-Hole C-R.  This is a welcome insight. Initially, I had thought that science was just missing the consumption of the mass, and was only seeing the aftermath, usually only leftover electrons.

Here is where the C-R theory can be flexible enough to realize that the high-energy gas is also capable of escaping the clutches of the galaxy’s largest Black-Hole C-R so it almost starves, even with "plentiful" hot hydrogen gas {food} available, if the food is hot enough, with the high-energy available to run away.

Before this finding, the C-R theory would have said that it is ONLY the leftover electrons that are seen escaping.  It is also the presence of the electrons in that vicinity that pushes away the incoming hydrogen gas, and this is the real reason that the central Black-Hole’s C-R mass barely eats that much at one sitting.  The C-R theory is glad that now, mainstream science is also noticing that messiness in eating.

In a similar new finding, scientists have just observed a pulsar that switches operational output styles.  When starving, it puts out radio waves, but when feeding, turns on the jets, outputting the focused collimated beams that the C-R theory claims is caused by the leftover electrons.

There is still no agreement in the mass media that elsewhere, where the hydrogen gas is cold enough, it is only the leftover electrons which provide the high-energy, and have the ability to rapidly flee the vicinity, but only the C-R theory has been making those claims publicly, for many years.

There is also a new NASA probe, called LADEE, successfully launched in September, to investigate the mysteries of the suspended dust particles floating in the lunar ionosphere.  I blogged about that noted "anomaly" within the last few months, and commented that ONLY the C-R theory claims that most of the extra electrons displayed in this phenomenon should come locally, as output from our sun’s diet.

Elsewhere, the duststorms on Mars, with it’s tenuous atmosphere of about 1/99th of earth’s surface air-pressure, also prominently feature these ionized-suspended dust particles, in bands of atmospheric regions, that also hover around some 30 km. above that planet’s surface.  In both cases, mainstream science has noted the phenomena of electrically suspended dust particles, but has not yet connected BOTH to a common cause.

Science-Friction, or Science-Fiction?  Are our wits being overcharged?

When combined with the evidence for lightning from thunderstorms, aurora’s, ionized radiation belts, sunspots (indicating sub-solar-surface magnetic fields), science should eventually "connect the dots" and notice that something electrical is happening, over and above that amount suspected from a little-bit of static-friction.  The C-R theory claims that these "over-charged" phenomena have similar "causes", and do not "just happen".

This begs the question, is there a commonality here, connected-by a process where a Black-Hole C-R is involved in both places, causing both the heat-energy output and the abundant electrons?  Sadly, despite the evidence, the inquisitive nature of science has not breached this topic, or sensed a connection.  This is where the C-R theory hopes to make a difference, and connect the [not so] obvious dots to the processes that may be occurring, almost within plain sight.

Whether you agree, or disagree, I hope that I can lead you to notice some peculiar things not commonly connected.  I try to serve as a bridge to make the "commute" from the existing world system outlook, and help you move-over to the C-R theory point-of-view.  It will be easier to handle, that way.

There are several magazine articles I would like to have commented upon, and relate them to the C-R theory.  Several magazine articles from other publications elsewhere will have to wait until the next blog.  Most of the articles discussed next come from the special publication mentioned below.

There is a Special Collector’s Edition titled Extreme Physics, from Scientific American, which has several articles which could have been made more relevant by the C-R theory.  Starting on page 20, Ghostly Beacons of New Physics, by Martin Hirsch and Werner Porod, is about the current state of research covering neutrinos, and science’s attempts to use these ghostly particles to uncover new insights.  The current speculation is that the neutrinos generated in nuclear reactors "oscillate" between {at least} three states, each of which has slightly different characteristics, including mass.  There are several different experiments simultaneously occurring, each using different types of matter, trying to "intercept" these transitions.  So far, conflicting results are obtained when compared to other experiments. [NOTE: I do not pretend to understand all of the theories invoked by these experiments, nor the math needed to manipulate the results.  I merely am trying to comment upon the C-R theory’s take on what is reported in the common media.]

From what I have read elsewhere, neutrinos are supposed to be able travel through a 1 light-year thick slab of lead, with only a 50% reduction in their beam intensity. [As if any lab in this entire universe possessed anywhere near that amount of lead for testing purposes.]

To be honest, the significance of neutrinos may be overrated in conventional theory, for their role played in fusion.  The C-R theory maintains that Black-Holes C-R may take on a much more significant role in our universe’s energy production processes, whereas the actual amount contributed from fusion may be highly overrated.  The topic is still fascinating, and Black-Holes C-R may still contain and trap significant quantities of these neutrinos, until they can escape, en masse, in a release-event.

NOTE: If our universe is not expanding, but fixed in size, there may even be an Olbers’ Paradox-like dilemma, asking why we do not detect many more neutrinos shooting through this universe, for the amount of fusion that is supposed to be occurring. [HINT: The number of Black-Holes C-R actively trapping them is a big part of the C-R theory’s "new answer" to the original question.]

Another article is Origin of the Universe, by Michael S. Turner, starting on page 36.  This article covers the conventional theory ideas about the origins of this universe, and briefly restates the standard thinking with conventional ideas.  From the C-R theory viewpoint, there are simpler alternatives that might also explain the real-world observations better, which have never been considered.

Science has never seriously considered a closed universe; it has merely been mentioned, then discarded as impossible or unlikely.  Mostly, this is because science has never tried to understand "How Curvature Works", as far as gravity is concerned. If they could understand it, as the C-R theory does, they might find that the simple idea of a closed universe is surprisingly successful in recreating {virtually} all of the observed conditions, without fancy, contrived shenanigans or "conservation-of-energy-violating" requirements needing almost the full measure of energy supplied to, and used-by this universe.

Does the C-R theory offer a much more "human friendly to understand alternative" to hyperinflation?

Without ever supplying a "causative process" to explain "How hyperinflation occurred", scientists merely accept it, on faith, that it must have done so, to make their figures turn out right.  There is neither a good explanation for what started it, what PAID-FOR it, or what caused it to stop when it did, rather than continuing on, hyperinflating forever, once the process started.

The entire C-R theory alternative does not even violate conservation of energy?  CLAIM: The C-R theory might overturn the Second LAW of thermodynamics, however.

Conventional science is remarkably confident that they understand the workings of this universe, starting after about 10-35th of a second, onward.  They remain baffled for any reason for the more mysterious start of the Big Bang.  They are also remarkably flippant about suggesting that we live in a multiverse, where such explosive beginnings might be regular occurrences.  They then need more Big Bangs to go off in various sub-sections of this universe, away from any testable observation, with barely a whisper of proof for anything as outrageous.

Another article, Super Supernovae, by Avishay Gal-Yam, starting on page 44, speculates that the very largest explosions need the production of antimatter to help to provide the energy needed to make such stars explode, as the conventional wisdom, and computer simulations, cannot make those objects unstable or energetic enough to explode, otherwise.

I do not mean to sound too harsh on my comments to this next article, starting on page 58.  I just used my response to this article to paste-in some material that I had created, and needed to find a suitable place in this blog to deposit it.

The article itself is fine, and adheres to "the party line" of the standard Big Bang theory.  The title is Does Dark Energy Really Exist?, by Timothy Clifton and Pedro G. Ferreira.  I would like to show how the C-R theory’s insights can help science out of the morass of muddled thinking that science is trapped-in.  While this article is a good summation of the currently-accepted standard thinking among the astronomical community, it missed-out completely in offering the C-R theory’s perspective as a plausible proposition.

This article covered three ways of expanding a universe, but never covered a more rational thought, "What if our universe was NOT expanding at all?"  Then, the entire need for dark energy vanishes, and our universe becomes much more benign to understand.

The PROBLEM of Dark Energy is Fixed – or –

No Expansion, No Contracting

One of the key contentions from the C-R theory is that our universe is fixed in size, and content, and is not expanding.  Rather, the conditions in this universe ARE NOT the same in all directions, but differ with both location and distance from the center. [Yes, our universe HAS a real center!!!]

When we look out elsewhere, from earth, ALMOST ALL locations are redshifted to us, or slowed-down, with the redshifts increasing with increasing distances.  However, in the direction of "The Great Attractor", we find blueshifts increasing towards that location.  Since this universe is probably not both expanding in all directions, and contracting in one direction or location, perhaps there is a better explanation for both redshifts, in all directions, and blueshifts towards one location, which can solve both observations.

If we live inside a Fixed-size, closed-universe, then locations elsewhere ARE NOT exactly LIKE here on earth, but experience DIFFERENT [time-rate] conditions.  When nature shows us that elsewhere, objects are slowed-down (or redshifted) to us, perhaps THAT IS actually THE CASE.  Take it that nature TELLS us, the time rates are NOT identical THERE.  The further away we can see, the slower objects "there" seem to be "clocking".

It is the one exception of "The Great Attractor", that clues-us-in that timerates elsewhere may not ALWAYS be identical to earth’s, but might vary, by location.  Closer to the center, time clocks faster there, and everywhere else, further-out from earth’s location, time will run even slower as distance-away increases.

Fixing our universe, by "FIXING" our universe, size-wise

The C-R theory also contends that the primary reason that science has gotten this universe’s properties horribly wrong is that the assumption was made, from the theory of relativity, (without proof), that conditions elsewhere in this universe ARE identical to those on earth, time-wise.

Since science first CORRECTS the observed data to "FIX the TIME RATES" before using the observed-data to understand what goes on elsewhere, PERHAPS THAT one mistake ALONE might account for most of the discrepancies we do find. [Like needing accelerating expansion to explain the appearance of older supervovae.]

HINT: The supernova results measured from further away appear dimmer than science suspects, because the actual time-rates, there, are not the same as here on earth, but are running slower.  Nature simply gives us the best answer.

NOTES: A closed universe is not expanding, and does not require dark energy to be supplied for free, on a continual basis.  A closed universe is stable, and cannot collapse inward, [without gaining energy], and cannot expand.  Because matter further out is always worth less energy, there, it cannot simply "fall" closer in to the center, without acquiring more energy from somewhere.  None is normally available.

Gravity, as: caused by curvature, has never been properly understood.  A simple rule is: Objects only can fall-in towards a greater curvature, but they can never fall back into lesser curvature.  Objects existing in greater curvature [with their lesser energy], must gain sufficient energy before they could be allowed to "visit" lower curvature regions.

For ANY closed universe: The lowest real-time energy-rates are at the outer edges, and the fastest time rate (least slowed-down, possessing the highest amount of energy) is always at the center.  This "energy-worth-accountability" requirement stabilizes the structure of matter, and it is this same structure that also prevents any possibility for a singularity from ever forming.

Note: The outer edges must be completely filled-up, in order to close off the universe.  Their minimum energy location is there, at the Schwarzschild radius.

Note 2: The electrically driven "winds" and flows do allow some internal-mixing of the contents between regions, by paying for the energy differences from their store of energy.  Gravity may have been credited where no credit was due to dark matter.

This brief overview is more fully covered in the C-R theory, but it is a short explanation for why our universe looks like it does, and acts like it does.

Starting on page 74, there is an article by Pankaj S. Joshi about Naked Singularities.  This article covers the possibility that instead of (generic) black holes, naked singularities could form.  The C-R theory take is that, in any case, a singularity can never form, as nature has already solved this problem, covered somewhat in the C-R theory’s response to the last article (above).  What the C-R theory speculates-on is that, instead of a singularity at the center, every Black-Hole C-R has an exactly critical volume at it’s center, which is what established the Black-Hole C-R in the first place.  This entire volume inside operates under normal conditions we DO [almost] understand.

All additional matter consumed by the Black-Hole C-R accumulates inside a special volume, termed The Neutral Zone C-R. The unique property which distinguishes the Neutral Zone C-R is that the entire volume (or zone) exists in curved spacetime where the escape velocity exceeds lightspeed.  What this does is: It prevents any electromagnetic information from communicating, interacting, or exchanging "either particles or waves".

In short, it "turns-off" matter, or holds it prisoner, confined within.  This insulates and isolates matter, and establishes an information barrier, across which, absolutely NO INFORMATION can pass. In essence, the conditions there "Force matter and energy to do nothing" as long as this confinement-condition holds.

In a critical sense, though, this confinement is "THE KEY" to understanding the Black-Hole C-R, and making it both practical and useful to nature.  This forces the Black-Hole C-R to only be able to concentrate and accumulate matter, and emit nothing.  All of the positive electrical charge gathers-up, without reporting the internal conditions to the outside world.

This confinement also forces the Black-Hole C-R to increase it’s internal order [again?], or to decrease entropy overall.  This "forces" every Black-Hole C-R to being 100% efficient in re-concentrating matter and energy while it continues in this state.

This special condition also means that Hawking radiation, emitted from within, is totally prevented.  Specifically, no selection of virtual particles outside, communicated from the conditions inside, is ever allowed. [But, as an even-better consolation prize, it allows this universe to recycle matter and energy, refreshing them to restore conditions back to an optimal, “near-original* state”, after the confinement conditions are compromised, then some-to-all of the contents are permitted to explosively exit.]

(*When I say restored to "a near original state", I mean, pre-eaten conditions, and not "a post Big-Bang-like" state.)

What is remarkable is that this system implies that nature has already pre-established the plan to recycle matter and energy, using each Black-Hole C-R as another "tool".  It is just fortunate that the C-R theory has been the first to recognize and report on this suspected-role, and to publicly advocate it’s acceptance.

By doing-away with the possibility of the singularity, the C-R theory can easily then deal with explaining the sheer practicality of the Black-Hole C-R to nature.  That is more than a fair trade-off, to dump-off a problem, and gain, in trade, a couple of useful solutions at the same time. [Just like an old-fashioned horse-swap meet, where everyone is a winner, and each one trades-for the horse-type they need from someone else also “saddled-with” “the wrong horse” for their job.]

As an irrelevant aside, for a horse-pun: When the Jr. Mr. Ed was just a colt, and they led him away for his first day of horse-sense-training, he bragged to all-of his four-footed friends, "HAY, I’ll be back in a little BIT."

The next article I would like to discuss, on page 82, is Black Stars, not Black Holes, by Carlos Barceló, Stefano Liberati, Sebastiano Sonego and Matt Viser.  This article attempts to explain how quantum effects might prevent true black holes from forming, but allow dense entities called black stars.  Most of this article again deals with problems created by needing a singularity, and the C-R theory solution to that has already been covered above.  One of the huge problems with current theory is that, modern theory accepts that information {as both particles and as photons} devoured (or swallowed) by a Black-Hole C-R may be lost forever, even if it is re-radiated away.

The C-R theory totally prevents this "abuse" of physics, because nearly everything that goes in to a Black-Hole C-R, comes out later, but under semi-random exiting-conditions for timing and for accomplishing the release.  By it’s very nature, the C-R theory totally avoids any information loss, and that problem is permanently solved.  Although this article offers a black star as a radical alternative, it is not radical enough to totally solve the troubles.  This is where the C-R theory’s fresh insights might well help to let science finally solve the dilemmas.  On page 88, there was a chart with 3 other ways out of a (generic) black hole, but none of them will be as successful, or practical as the C-R theory’s solution. [I welcome home-reader’s comparisons here, and want you to evaluate “the competition” for effectiveness, practicality, and user-understandability.  This is where the C-R theory ideas should wipe-out the alternatives, and produce easy-to-understand results.]

As an Alternative offering, here is the C-R theory’s take explaining some of the key differences in the "brand-name" Black-Hole C-R. [this selection below is pasted-in from a supplemental section I wrote to be added-in somewhere to this milestone blog. This was as good of a spot as any.]

The central ideas for the C-R theory can help to guide the curious visitor through the entire process, covering the food-chain of "The Black-Hole C-R experience".  Although I cannot "prove" any of this in such a manner that science would accept it, I believe a simple view of the results of science’s own reports will contain enough hidden clues to eventually win-over the most hardened skeptic, given the time, after I can explain it all to them.

33% Success

One of the key ideas in standard thinking is that the generic black hole can be characterized on the outside by only 3 numbers; the mass, the electrical charge, and the spin.  Although the C-R theory agrees that all 3 properties play a part in nature’s plans, the ONLY one of those three parameters that can actually be measured externally from a Black-Hole C-R will be the mass.  The other two parameters remain hidden inside, isolated and insulated, unable to communicate-out their status.  NOTE: Those parameters are still there, but the "over-light-speed escape velocity" traps "knowledge of them" inside.  Knowing how curvature works will explain why the mass can be measured from the outside, without emitting anything at the speed-of-light.

Explaining the difference between a generic black hole, [which does not exist in the real world], and a Black-Hole C-R is the "claimed" use to which nature’s plans can put either one.  In the generic black hole, the mass is eaten, then trapped forever inside, unless nature can find some way to undo, repair, or disgorge, or ship elsewhere the dinners, somewhere along the line.  The main problem with this scenario is, there is no other known instance where nature is content to let such a vast quantity of valuable resources to sit idly by and remain untapped for so long.

Conversely, with the Black-Hole C-R, the entire recovery process is literally underway, making progress, after the "newly formed" Black-Hole C-R eats it’s first ionized proton.  Every charged nucleus that the Black-Hole C-R chows-down upon will contribute to the eventual recovery of ALMOST *100% of everything eaten. [NOTE: *It would be the full 100%, but normally the original central mass becomes closed-off to the external world, as soon as the critical threshold is achieved.]  NOTE 2: This closed-off mass inside continues to exist, establishing a concentrated base, of stable conditions, where the escape velocity only reaches (or exceeds) lightspeed at the outermost portions.  Most Black-Holes C-R, once established, should continue forever, but there may be some rare exceptions allowed, when the sheer violence of the mass-escaping is energetic enough to disturb the central mass, and possibly allowing that inner sanctum to once again, fall under the minimum threshold. {i.e., the Crab nebula might be a prime example of this happening – I was initially convinced that this would never occur, but nature "gently" showed me otherwise.}

There is much more to the process than I have covered here in this blog, but I have covered those aspects in earlier blogs. The most important point is: nature uses the very nature of the Black-Hole C-R, and it’s menu choices (by rejecting almost 100% of the negatively charged electrons at dinnertime) to accomplish the eventual recovery process.  Absolutely NOTHING goes to waste, even if it seemingly sits idle for what seems to us to be an extended period.

Stephen Hawking "optimistically" estimated that a generic multi-solar-mass sized black hole might radiate itself away into nothingness, using Hawking radiation, in something like 10100th years, if it did not eat again.  The C-R theory brand name Black-Holes C-R will accomplish the entire recovery process in a very small fraction of that timeframe*. [* Or, they will successfully recycle many additional times during that same-length timeframe.]

I try not to take credit for "inventing" the recovery process, but I believe I merely have been permitted to understand {or imagine or visualize, or uncover} the overall cycle in a human-friendly-to-understand manner.  Nature was far ahead of humanity in it’s grasp of the dilemma, and was not troubled by the nay-saying reported in earth’s textbooks, which never went into a Black-Hole C-R to make their overall assessment of matter’s properties.

The C-R theory contends that, the reason we, on the outside, do not sense ANY hint of the massive electrical charge, built-up inside of a Black-Hole C-R is: That is how nature designed the process to work, in the first place.  By separating the mass acquisition phase from the disgorgement phase, Black-Holes C-R continue-on, hiding the precise details on their internal workings, but leaving "easy" clues around outside for the gifted observers to pick-up on.

In this theory’s humble opinion, the reason that nature needs two separate inverse-square forces, both gravity and electromagnetism, is that they both behave quite differently when coupling-across the Schwarzschild radius {also, this border is often called the Event Horizon, by standard science}.

A Final Event’s [Horizon], A Name-Retirement Ceremony:

GOAL: To send the term – "The Event Horizon" – on it’s final, away-mission, into oblivion

NOTE: The C-R theory’s humble opinion is that the term "Event Horizon" is terribly misleading, and is a very bad name, unsuited to describe what really occurs at this boundary.  The conventional thinking is so messed-up with the timing, thinking about the appearance of a time slowdown or stoppage, that this misdirects thinkers from the more important properties featured at this interface: as a barrier to lightspeed-only photons, creating a total blockage to outgoing "report-attempts", and an incoming dinner’s wide-open gateway; all in combination.

I am extremely-reluctant to "honor" that term [the event horizon], even by the historical precedent, since using that name when describing this location obscures the true value as a one-way "valve".  The tragedy in the name is that the most important ideas are avoided, besides noting that the most-misleading notion often gets mentioned and credited, while the real reason for it’s importance is completely missed.

Repurposing or renaming {"the event horizon"} to a more useful concept:

A BARRIER to charge? – or -, A buryer of charge – [as in – “Can YOU Dig-It”?]

Nature’s "Plot" for Putting that [Electrically Charged] Matter to Rest {as in R.I.P.}

The C-R theory now claims it is the literal, physical presence of the lightspeed escape velocity, operating as a defined BARRIER to communication, that completely prevents ANY knowledge of the internal electrical charge from passing-through or coupling-out.

The totally different, indirect method, where gravity is created locally, on-the-spot, in response to the level of the geometric-like [or just metric] curvature, allows gravity to adjust the energy-holding capacity of matter in exactly the same manner as it would for any lesser sized mass positioned outside.  Thus, it behaves like "gravity" couples-out of the Black-Hole C-R, without anything physically exceeding "the speed-of-light" limit.

NOTE: To the best of my understanding, I have found nowhere else in science where this speculation about the performance differences ACROSS the Black-Hole’s C-R Schwarzschild radius, where the selective difference in performance from the TWO different basic forces [gravity vs. electromagnetism] as a possibility is mentioned, or considered, much-less exploited.  Essentially, gravity "couples-out" indirectly, yet electromagnetism is totally blocked, and confined inside.

The Black-Hole C-R vs. (generic) black hole difference – or

Pass it on, – or, – Pass on it? Why "gravity" passes-out, and charge is confined inside.

What should be a more obvious, and useful place for nature to APPLY this unique principle, than at the volume, starting where the enormous concentration of mass, is {deliberately?} gathered-together by nature, to make-up the Black-Hole C-R?

Part of what the C-R theory is trying to accomplish is to alert home readers to the idea that nature deliberately creates the exact conditions needed to completely recover (and recycle) absolutely everything that the Black-Hole C-R eats.  The C-R theory is trying to sell-you on the overall usefulness of the concept, and the simple practicality of the process.  STRONG HINT: If YOU could design such a cool tool, WOULD you?

WHY else would nature waste the time and effort into gathering-up so many huge concentrations of mass?  It should have been obvious from the start that nature is very fond of Black-Holes C-R, just from the sheer numbers of them discovered, so far.

Science seems closer than ever to noticing that the properties of Black-Holes C-R are intimately intertwined with the centers of most galaxies, but they still lack the comprehension for just how interconnected and intertwined the destinies of these two entities are, and for what goes on there.  The C-R theory’s knowledge of the effective behavior difference of the two forces was derived mostly using other concepts, rather than textbook-learning and "formula-worshipping-adherence" to the printed parameters.  It was based partly on the actual observations, and partly on intuition, using keen insight to achieve entirely different conclusions than standard science can obtain.

I know that the original idea, that the 4 forces ALL behave alike, because they started-off alike at the Big Bang, is held-on-to dearly, by the establishment.  They might tolerate some mild difference in a behavior being slightly tweaked, if the real world observations agree. My problem was, I needed more changes in more places than I could possibly imagine mainstream "science" ever yielding-to.

My solution, some 30 plus years back, was to write the C-R theory as funny, and to focus on reports about known phenomena, available in the literature.  The abundance of C-R like symptoms, narrated to cater to the interests of any possible home readers, yet with enough theoretical "towing-the-line" whenever that was possible, was my strategy.  Unfortunately, I still needed too many substantial changes to receive any level of consideration from the professionals.

I would yield to the claim that: Science is NOT supposed to work like that.  However, the results of "thinking this way" speak for themselves, and give me new and profound insights that simply cannot be achieved by any other method I have found.

I am trying to explain just how different this thinking is, and why there is a real difference-gap in understanding what goes on.

I cannot "prove it", but I can demonstrate it. I can try to explain it to you, and show just why nature might choose to operate in this manner.

I will admit that I had my initial doubts that something like the C-R theory process could possibly exist.  Wherever I looked, nature seemed to supply numerous instances where exactly what "only the C-R theory was looking-for", was "hidden" in the phenomena reported by voluminous articles and on-line web sites.

One of the greatest reasons to finally post these "crazy ideas" is the probability that at least part of these processes [or something like it] is occurring.  By advising home readers what to look-for, and showing them where to look for these phenomena, my hope is that at least some of you might also start to recognize these same patterns.

If the patterns I am suspecting ARE NOT THERE, and cannot be found, then no-one else should detect this commonality.  These ideas should flop-about like a fish out of water, unsupported by the facts.  If, on the other hand, the patterns are truly there, then ambitious home readers should find many similar items, by themselves, hidden in the reports, long before I have noticed them.

To the extent possible, I would hope to demonstrate some vindication, when others claim that they confirm that they, too, start to recognize these same patterns in nature.

Although I am not claiming complete relevance, the arrival of our 100,000th visitor, and more, to this web-site, is gratifying.  Whether it is yet to be regarded as a vindication for this site’s ideas, or as a simple passing curiosity, to be briefly laughed-at, then lumped-in with all of this world’s other follies, and discarded as irrelevant; at least I can say I tried to make a serious difference.  All I ask is to simply try to understand what I am proposing, without objection, then see if it works for you.  Then, if it does not work as promised, reject it.

All Alone on a "Treasure Hunt", Finding Treasure Where No-One Else was Looking

[My "Treasure" was All "Junk" to Science: Unwanted, Unsought, Unloved, and Discarded]

Over the last 30 some years, there are so many supporting "finds", that have been collectively ignored by the mainstream, that gave me real hope that I am on the right trail, or have connected-in to something, system-wide.  There seem to be so many unclaimed treasures in existing reports, that mainstream science wants nothing to do with, but which strongly support the C-R theory’s ideas.  The results were too great to keep silent about. If I can inspire any of our home readers to continue their search, to try to seek ALL available evidence, and to LOOK-FOR easily-recognizable patterns, which have been glossed-over, ignored or dismissed.

If you sincerely can find no other instances of abundant stray electrical charges, massive electrical currents, huge magnetic fields, layered-bands of-gas-flows, gathered-up and streaming in light-years-thick gas flows, lightning, auroras, x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, and the like, then I probably AM crazy, and self deluded.  If they have a cause, a commonality, and are evidence for a whole system of interactions, still deliberately unnoticed by "science", read-on.

If, however, you too start to recognize that, this theory is not as crazy as it should be, and you too start to recognize these "obvious" patterns, then: welcome aboard.  Rest assured, these patterns have real CAUSES, at least from the C-R theory’s viewpoint.  That is why I try to take the time in each blog to patiently explain some of the differences in what one EXPECTS to find, and to train potential observers WHY to look where the C-R theory recommends.

If, by any chance, the C-R theory is wrong, [and not just wrong because “the book says so”], I want to find it out as soon as possible.  For now, I can accept if I can at least get potential "believers" to first, recognize some valid points, and then, to start-to consider them.  Eventually, science WILL come-around to the C-R theory’s views, if nature has anything to do with it.  So much evidence will accumulate, that the obvious connections will become even more apparent with my every new blog.

Almost every month, the C-R theory is rewarded with new observations that seem to be tailor made, ONLY to fit this theory.  Some of the observations find conditions and phenomena that only the C-R theory could rejoice over.

A new study of the Black-Hole C-R , SGR A*, at our galaxy’s center concluded that almost 99% of the HOT hydrogen mass entering the accretion disk escaped, and that the Black-Hole C-R there was a messy eater.

Before reading about this study, I would not have believed that the other parts of the hydrogen gas’s nuclei, like the protons and any neutrons, can also escape unharmed and uneaten.  I will admit that this is a new finding to me, and it did surprise me in this case.

Normally, around most Black-Holes C-R, science confuses the presence of the radiating energy from the fleeing electrons for the whole mass’s ability to wiggle-away.

In this new study, the ability of 99% of the HOT hydrogen gas to also escape intact, was something unexpected.

It should be obvious that the only things light-enough to escape from the Black-Hole’s C-R voracious appetite, and possessing the zippiness, added-in from self-repulsion to propel large groups of themselves away at 99.9% of lightspeed, are freed electrons.  Science cannot yet accept that the dual streams of high-speed, self-collimated jets are pure electrons, [which ONLY the C-R theory expects], magnetically self focused into narrow beams, despite the evidence in plain sight.  Instead, they want to imbue some energetic photons, released at the Schwarzschild radius, with the spontaneous-creation energy to then power the creation of charge-balanced, mixed-pairs of electrons and positrons (or anti-electrons), and have this electrically neutral energetic combo somehow try to fit the bill and beam-away.

A Half-sphere of influence, – or -, just shucking-off?  Getting the C-R theory’s "spin"

Some time back, I remember seeing archival black and white film footage of people in an amusement park fun house, maybe in the 1920's, attempting to sit-upon spinning wooden (polished or waxed) half-spheres.  As they did so, they took a path where they ended-up sliding down from the top of the sphere, then, on the flat, waxed floor, scooting away from the scene, gliding-away on their keesters, linearly sliding-away from the center of the spheres.

90 year-old Jet Lag, -or –

Re-applying the same principle, demonstrated-in that film-clip from about 90 years ago

It occurred to me, that, if one reversed the footage, but then kept the ejection path velocity constant afterward, one could nicely mimic the jet’s path that each "orphaned" electron would take, if they were shucked-off and discarded, in bulk, just as the C-R theory proposes.  "Recycling" the applied lesson from that film-stock might provide one some insight into what does go on at many (if not ALL) central massive Black-Holes C-R, with respect to the creation and formation of the two jet beams. 

 

Again here, my main goal is not to antagonize others who do not yet understand science the C-R theory-way, but to help as many home-readers as we can to accept the simplest, most-logical possibility: using and exploiting the very built-in properties of basic matter.  Why not think like nature does, and USE what is already at hand, with the maximum efficiency, in the simplest way?

I am simply trying to show how one can use the C-R theory to test for the likelihood that demonstrates that these processes ARE already occurring, if one knows where to look.

Once again, thank you for visiting this web site.  I hope that the discussions and the new ideas help YOU understand what is occurring in this universe in a more logical manner, AFTER you have visited our site, and tested the ideas.  I would encourage you to return again, often, as there is simply too much new here to take-in at just one sitting.

Your questions and comments are welcome.  Your skepticism is expected, as normal. It may take 5 years or more for you to fully accept or appreciate some of the concepts I have tried to showcase here.  There may be many more simple discoveries available, awaiting someone to understand them.

If you have found this web-site useful or thought-provoking, please let others know.

Jerry Reynard, Last modified, September 27th, 2013

How what was to be the July Blog became the August Blog

How what was to be the July Blog became the August Blog

Welcome to our 90,000th visitor to well beyond our 95,000th visitor, and to everyone else.  There was recently a set of specials on (generic) black holes on the Science channel, including a few new programs first aired in 2013.  I still cringe when I hear their "experts" bemoaning the lack of understanding of their (generic) black holes, and the mysteries, especially on what lies on the inside.  What bothers me the most is: They always interview the same people, authorities who tell you that they do not understand what goes on inside the (generic) black hole.  My suggestion would be: find someone with a reasonable confidence that they DID understand what was going on inside. [this author, perhaps]

I would still maintain that, among ALL the competition, the C-R theory has what is: the most likely to be the correct answers; from the simple understanding, the Occam’s Razor principle, where the simplest idea is the most likely one to be found correct, and the real-world fit, where what we DO actually find in nature matches the C-R theory’s expectations far closer than does the big bang theory.

I desire to be more like a knowledgeable tour guide to you, gently guiding our home readers to the most likely places to showcase the significant answers, than the arrogant "know-it-all", who is more interested in personal credit for any new ideas than in your understanding of the situation.  The recent influx of visitors may bode well for the C-R theory, and help to end the long drought of misunderstanding which has prevailed elsewhere.

I would like to cover several ideas, and review the differences which set the C-R theory apart from virtually all of our competition.  My primary goal is to try to help to allow others to gain the same simple and profound understanding that I believe I have achieved.  To show as clearly as possible how to achieve that new understanding by observing those phenomena that are already known, but are not usually connected-in with a good theory.

Also, I would like to cover some very interesting new articles in the (formerly) current Infinite Energy magazine (May-June), Issue #109.  The authors of 3 articles arrive at some of the same conclusions as the C-R theory, but with a more formal, mathematically-based understanding.  Although they have not gone far enough (by the C-R theory’s understandings), I would welcome their contributions to further your learning.  Additionally, I would welcome them to the stated position of a similar understanding, which already places them at the head of the pack of virtually everyone else (other than C-R theory readers).

I will attempt to lead them from where they currently are, and try to show how the C-R theory fits-in, and show them the overall plan that the C-R theory claims is for the use, feeding, care, and recycling ability of Black-Holes C-R, supernovas, quasars, Seyfert galaxies, active galaxies, and up to GRB’s, or gamma ray bursts.

No other theory has been so bold or specific as to point out what, exactly should be occurring.  The C-R theory has few needs, but must have enormous quantities of excess, stray electrical charges found, in abundance, in order to cause the system-wide changes imposed by the electrical charge imbalances.  These imbalances cause specific motions imposed by magnetic fields, onto gasses, masses, structures and galaxy arms.

One of the key core ideas is that it is the freed electrons, released outside the Black-Hole’s C-R event horizon, (or Schwarzschild radius) will push-back infalling matter, and prevent the Black-Hole C-R from overeating too quickly, and prevent huge, runaway energy releases, at least while it is feeding.

BACK IN MY (galaxy’s) ARMS AGAIN:

It is those excess electrons that also thin out the inflow of gas and "debris", or bigger chunks of mass.  The electrical currents generated by those flowing electrons, generate magnetic fields that guide and shape the formation of galaxy arms, and help to hold and to mold the shape of the spiral galaxy’s arms in such a way that the galaxy stays together, holding it’s observed shape, in spite of the lack of the imagined amount of "observed" mass, required to hold it together.

It is the interaction of electrical charges, and their associated magnetic fields, which also polarizes the light (and other em-bandwidths) of em-band radiation.  After the Black-Hole C-R feeds in this manner for long periods of time, those Black-Holes C-R contain huge quantities of protons and neutrons (without most of their attached electrons).  When later permitted to become "time-active" again, they THEN will be capable of destabilizing the Black-Hole C-R enough to cause the nova, supernova, up through GRB’s, where the energy level emitted is "off the charts" as compared with the far-more-modest expectations of the thermonuclear-powered fusion process, which mainstream theory believes accounts for almost all of the standard energy released.

By a nice coincidence, NASA has just released new information on high energy electrons they have found accumulated in the earth’s Van Allen belt.  The best part is, I know of no other theory which needs to find excess quantities of electrons, or expects to find them locally.  Most theories treat these huge quantities of electrons as a pesky nuisance, or as an inconvenience. Here is a link to a story about the discovery.

www.space.com/22112-electron-satellites-van-allen-radiation-belts.html

I covered, in the previous blog, how the Black-Hole C-R conveniently uses the unique disparity between the accumulated positive charges, and the lack of any outward signs announcing the presence of that same charge accumulation, which mainstream science holds is there.  One check of the remnant’s contents should be enough to convince skeptics that a huge charge imbalance exists.  The Black-Hole C-R specifically exploits the obvious mass disparity/difference between the lowly but energetic electrons, and the nearly 2000 times more massive protons.

It is not an "accident" that this unique situation is developed, but nature specifically uses matter which was either created (long, long ago, much earlier than 13.8 billion years ago), to set-up the situation to ensure the deliberate "recovery" of expended matter and energy, which would otherwise go almost entirely to waste, once eaten by a generic black hole.

The C-R theory is likely alone in explaining and expecting specific patterns of electrical current-flow, locations of ionizations, and in the continuing nature of the staying-power of the multiple positive ionizations found in supernova remnants, in ways that can only result from C-R theory-like processes.

Mainstream science is not only NOT looking for such items as are often found in existing reports, but they would deny that anything [electrical] of the kind is going on.  The C-R theory is the only theory that receives THE CAUSE of creation of cosmic rays as an ongoing byproduct of normal, everyday operations.  That this result appears without needing any awkward conniptions or coincidental sleights-of-hand to achieve this harmony is one of the indications, to me, that I was on the right track, and not just imagining a fairy tale.

As far as I know, no other theory is so confident as to announce that everything eaten by a Black-Hole C-R might eventually be released, down to the lightest neutrino and the coldest photon.  Thus: There is never an information dilemma about where everything goes and what nature does with it after it is swallowed.

NOTE: If any statement is made that nothing ever emerges from a Black-Hole C-R after entering, that is clearly false.  Nature is also nowhere near patient enough to consider waiting some 10100 years to recover the contents of a generic black hole, slowly waiting for Hawking radiation to free the particles and photons.

A recent finding showed that, in the vicinity of a supernova, rather than a heavy concentration of dust left behind in the aftermath, the immediate vicinity was almost swept clean, with the expected dust found evacuated from the vicinity and deposited a significant distance away.  Only if one understands the C-R theory process, does this concept make sense, and this result sound reasonable. It is the additional release of the incredible quantity of stray positive charges that drives-away the loose dust with such a force and fury that only the presence of excessive electrical charges can impart.

NOTE: It is not just this once, but over and over, that C-R theory-like items are mentioned in existing reports, without any notice or recognition.  It is only after being told [or shown] what to notice, and where to look, that the informed home reader can learn to recognize the cues, hunt for these clues, and find then recognize the patterns regularly occurring.

Pattern Recognition:

What I am hoping to do is to sow the seeds of pattern recognition and understanding to a skeptical general public, and show the tremendous usefulness of the overall process to smooth operation of our universe.  Nature specializes in moving and mixing the contents, and "freshening" matter and energy throughout our home, in ways that "science" has ignored. [also known as: Recycling]  I am trying to make these blogs a kind-of field guide, to help YOU know what to look-for, and where to look, to start a pattern-recognition in the available literature.

It is not the rarity, but the frequency of often finding these patterns hidden in almost every report, that cause one to realize there might be an entire layer of unexpected [and un-looked-for] processes going on, which only the C-R theory can help one understand.

3 Articles in Infinite Energy Magazine, Issue #109

I was pleasantly surprised to find 3 consecutive articles in the (formerly) current [May-June] issue #109 of Infinite Energy magazine concerning theoretical implications of Einstein’s theories, and why they [the authors] feel that the collapse into a singularity is not justified.  I welcome them to that fellow "group" of understanders who have arrived at that conclusion.

While I may not entirely agree with their methods for how they achieved their conclusions, I do agree with them that the supposed singularity is not possible.  I believe I have gone further, and maybe radically too far ahead of their conclusions, to show where the implications might lead, if there was someone to show them the correct way.

Nevertheless, it has been so long since I have seen any corresponding progression of ideas leading to (but still following behind-of) the C-R theory, in any [almost] mainstream publication, that I view that as a victory, to have "company" at the same approximate stage of progress in one of the "key" core ideas.  That establishes a foundation where the C-R theory must build upon, in order to reach a complete package, realizing where the Black-Hole C-R fits-in in this universe.

The first article, starting on page 8, reprinted from a paper presented to the 14th meeting of the Natural Philosophy Alliance in 2007, by Robert J. Heaston, concerns historical references and correspondence revealing how Einstein approached deriving his equations for the theory of relativity.  Among Mr. Heaston’s conclusions were, that there is no singularity, and the collapse into a singularity is impossible, and that the event horizon of (generic) black holes is more-like a limit than a starting point.  The article stated, at the end, that Mr. Heaston passed-away in 2009, so he cannot be consulted for any further ideas.

There are some conclusions in this article I do not agree with, but I will hold off discussing them for now.  An unstated implication, which the C-R theory would agree with is that gravitational bodies, using curvature, tend to produce motion to a maximum point, and would not continue to influence matter back into lesser curvature again.

After that first article, there were two additional articles authored by Billie Westergard, starting on page 17, based upon the work of Mr Heaston, but taking it to a higher level.  Among his reasonings are that there is a practical limit to the possible amount of gravitational collapse, based upon a different type-of logic than I used with the C-R theory.

Mr. Westergard also rejects the Big Bang, and that the universe starting from a singularity, both of which are also publicly held views from the C-R theory.  It is possible that some of my reasonings may eventually be acceptable to those already nearing some of the C-R theory’s mid-way points.

I have read a couple earlier articles in Infinite Energy magazine on the proposed nature of the internal workings of the atom, with the POAMS concept (an acronym for Pope-Osborne-Angular-Momentum-Synthesis).  I do not yet understand that concept well enough, to the extent that I would care to publicly comment upon it in this blog.  I will state that the concept is very specific about the workings of the internal nature inside the atom, and uses a large number of matched-pair electron-antielectron’s, synchronized to be 180° apart, or exactly out of phase with each other, in lieu of a proton, neutron, or their constituent quarks as an alternative.

I will state that the POAMS concept is NOT what I learned in school. [But, the C-R theory was not taught there, in school, either, so I will not hold that against it.]

I do question whether the POAMS concept would agree with the reams of data derived from the LHC [Large Hadron Collider], analyzed by supercomputers, with the most extreme collisions of myriads of protons, ignoring the "least significant", more standard collisions, and focusing intensely on the most exotic, top, one-in-a-billion, highest-energy, most bizarre results.

As such, with some of their conclusions identical to the C-R theory, I still welcome those believers in this new concept to the limited club of those who do not believe the singularity is real, or even possible.  Since Mr. Westergard is several steps closer to the C-R theory’s positions than most of the scientific world, I would hope to correspond with him about where to look, and what to notice.  It is also possible that the C-R theory’s view is still far too radical for anyone else to "safely" publicly endorse, so halfway there is far better than supporting the Big Bang.

I will state that both of the articles used a much more formalized, math-based reasoning, [a formula-based logic], than what I used in the C-R theory.  The C-R theory’s view is also that the formula can be trusted only so far, before the conditions "imposed" by the situation render the formula null and void in the case of the Black-Hole C-R.  Mr. Westergard arrived at similar conclusions in a couple areas.  There were hints in the second article that he is close to, if not specifically, recognizing the possibility of a closed universe.

NEAR to Understanding of a Closed Universe:

No other theory that I know-of has recognized the concept of an energy-time difference, derived from gravity, unique to the C-R theory; the conventional understanding is there is no natural stability of a closed universe* [*as is taught by it’s enemies, or detractors].  In their opinion, our universe needs some precarious balance of a type of mysterious stabilizing force to exist somewhere between outright collapse, and accelerating expansion.

I have covered elsewhere on this web-site just why the C-R theory maintains that our universe is perfectly stable, size-wise, after this universe initially closed-off.  I will briefly mention here, that our universe exists with just the right properties which require such stability by that very nature. [–this IS NOT a coincidence, just what happens AFTER a universe, or a Black-Hole’s C-R inside, closes-off]

My goal is to offer anyone insights into where: considering the observations they’ve got available publicly, right now, can lead them to supporting the C-R theory, and how to get there.  I am hoping that the C-R theory positions will seem less radical, after discovering the full-system-plan, to those who already reject the "standard thinking".  With a bit more of a forward-thinking progression, I can lead them on a path of mutual co-discovery.  [Then they too can say: Oh, Now I see why nature works that way!!!]

Re-classifying most C-R theory rejecters as pre-understanders instead

Rather than assessing the current situation, in science, as; almost everyone in "the establishment" rejects the C-R theory ideas, I have recently decided to modify that outlook, and re-categorized most of this world’s scientists into the role of pre-understanders.  Given time and suitable [guided] knowledge, I believe that they will come-around to understand it, eventually.  The obstacle is that, currently, they believe false ideas, but support them with "evidence" that they each tell each-other, supports those ideas.

What I need to do is to point out the flaws and weaknesses of those ideas, and show why: what they have concluded is invalid.  If this can happen, I can then replace their views with improved understanding, that takes into account what they believed, changes it to correct the observations, and shows the proper place of the evidence.

Overcoming the Engineering Concept: Where the "The Equation" Rules the Roost

Note: I would like to argue why the situation created immediately inside the Black-Hole C-R , where the incoming mass is trapped in a "faster than light-speed escape velocity*", gets itself into a location where that condition* there overrules or trumps the entropy equation.  This situation prevents the emission of any "speed-of-light energy" or information.

Science does not either accept or realize that nature has gone to great lengths, building up a sufficiently large mass; creating a Black-Hole C-R.  Nature then uses this special situation specifically to set-up or exploit the unique situation in this case, to overcome entropy, and thus, to practically recycle matter and energy.  Mainstream scientists are trained, in school, to be beholden to the equation, and cannot (or will not) imagine why a situation could overcome that [not so?] fundamental law.

UNDERSTANDING the Reasoning when Conditions Break Down:

Generally, respect for the "book equations" is a good thing, EXCEPT : WHEN the conditions the book used to derive that equation DO NOT APPLY.  HINT: Immediately inside the Black-Hole C-R, but before arriving at a non-existent singularity, the equations literally break down.  This is where the C-R theory insists there is a Neutral Zone C-R, a unique volume where the escape velocity is above the speed-of-light.

The conditions there simply cannot be re-created anywhere on earth, but are easy to describe.  NO interactions at lightspeed can occur.  Everything is temporarily trapped, with no possibility of communication out.  This allows this one specific volume to gain EVERYTHING eaten by the Black-Hole C-R, without influencing the closed-off volume located a bit further inside, all the way down to the center.

By a happy coincidence, everything further inside EVERY Black-Hole C-R IS perfectly understandable by standard science, with a few simple tweaks.  HINT: Our universe IS ALSO our lab model of a very large Black-Hole’s C-R inside, and offers a view of every feature needed, except for the Neutral Zone C-R.  [The Neutral Zone C-R concept was needed to make the whole universe-system work properly, as a package-deal, and can either be accepted, or rejected.  It was imposed upon my understanding as necessary, and I accepted it as such.]

In the next blog, I would like to comment on a new concept becoming popular, called a firewall, believed to exist inside the event horizon.  Find info on, and discuss the firewall concept, inside the Schwarzschild radius (event horizon).  Show why the flaws in the argument for a firewall, make the concept slightly useful, but not critical to understanding both why and how this is done.

UNDERSTANDING THIS UNIVERSE AS A PACKAGE-DEAL:

Important claim: ONLY the C-R theory claims to both understand: WHY and HOW the Black-Hole C-R exploits the basic properties of matter, to use them creatively to accomplish a mission and a goal.  This is not a random accident, but a pre-planned [designed-in] strategy, evidence for [and perhaps: a demonstration-of] the handiwork of the Creator.  HINT: This level-of precision can not be accomplished as an OOPS moment, accidentally, due to a randomly derived set of basic conditions and circumstances imposed-upon our contents, occurring during or microseconds after the start-of a Big Bang.  The non-coincidental need for extreme precision, and the deliberate ability of the matter to be manipulatable in an extreme condition, suggests that the basic properties of matter did not arise at random, [or at a fixed beginning], but were always consistent.  The basic properties of matter did not change or vary randomly at a whim, at a beginning.  Matter has ALWAYS had the same basic properties as it has right now, and those properties were never "held-hostage" to some random sets of beginning conditions.

The Black-Hole C-R is a Vital Part of Nature’s Tool-Kit; a Necessary Part of the Whole

NOTE: Only if one understands the complete plan, the entire package, the total system-concept, does the overall strategy become apparent, and the true usefulness of the Black-Hole C-R become revealed.  There is a complete level of matter-energy interaction occurring (continually) in this universe, that science is completely unaware of.

Please use the C-R theory as something-of a tourist’s guide map, to show you where to look, what to look for, and what to notice, to make your journey into the "unknown" much more noteworthy, like a guided tour through the full attractions.  When you can be guided to the main points of interest, the "unknown" changes into "the familiar". It should also help you to make sense of, and understand better, this entire known universe.

HINT: If the Universe YOU understand does not make sense to you,

please try-out a BETTER theory to help you make clear sense of it!!!  I would strongly suggest starting off with the C-R theory FIRST, and then later, check out any of the competition to compare the level of understanding, and the matching of the expectations with the real-world observations.

Match the known phenomena with the C-R theory’s expectations, and then compare to what the Big Bang scenarios want to see.

The milestone mark of 100,000 visitors is within sight, probably in September.

Do I want to mention how near we are to a very-reasonable milestone of reaching 100,000 home readers by back-to-school time, sometime in September?  I want to thank the ever increasing number of visitors who are giving the C-R theory a fair shot, and a fighting chance.  Even if you reject these ideas, for now, if I can get you to recognize certain patterns, and start to look objectively for C-R theory based items of interest, I do not mind if I may lose the initial skirmish, but win the long term war for your understanding.

My assertion is that there is something of GREAT interest, to be seen, to be understood, to be linked-to, to help the home reader come to a better understanding, and sadly, one can only find that here, for now.  Thank you for your time, and your interest in the C-R theory.

NOTE: We are trying to establish an "Evidence Locker Page", a place where the home-reader can access links to various phenomena we mention from time to time.  We may be able to group the phenomena into regions or sub sections, covering locations like earth, the solar system, the Milky Way galaxy, while also addressing the scale of activity, and magnitude.

I welcome all home-reader’s suggestions about helpful links you have found which will show-off the C-R theory’s contention that there is a huge amount of electrical activity occurring all around, which has been generally missed if not downright ignored.  The C-R theory also maintains that this electrical, magnetic, and charge-driven activity HAS A CAUSE, and is not simply imported from somewhere else, or occurring spontaneously.

Jerry Reynard, last modified August 9th, 2013

 

 

More Good News for the C-R Theory, and Celebrations of Visitor’s Milestones

More Good News for the C-R Theory, and Celebrations of Visitor’s Milestones

I am becoming more convinced that if you cannot, or do not accept the C-R theory ideas (or at least, use them to model the complete process), you simply will not understand the processes going on in this universe.  There are too many errors compounded in the standard view to allow one to understand our universe in a simple, straightforward manner.  There are at least 3 major errors which mainstream science adheres-to, and they will refuse to accept that they could be wrong in any of those 3 areas, much less in ALL 3 of them, simultaneously.

For this reason, I am offering a continuing special, presenting the C-R theory to anyone who will read it or consider it, for free.  It is not that this theory is not worth the cost which could be charged, it is that, too many potential converts would not consider the worth of this theory because they are to well trained (indoctrinated) with a “standard” viewpoint.  It is far more important to me that this message be fairly presented, by someone who knows it’s true worth in explaining what we actually see.

I have decided that the two opposing views cannot be reconciled, as the gulf between them is too wide.  This mandates that one learn this new theory from the ground-up, and then, re-consider many long-held beliefs, before the proper insight can be imparted. [If it IS WRONG, one can easily revert back to the previous belief system, with only a temporary deviation.]

Next, welcome to the 75,000th, 76,00th, 77,000th, 78,000th 79,000th , 80,000th, 81,000th, 82,000th , 83,000th, and the 84,000th visitors, and everyone else in-between.  Thank you, each one, for visiting this web-site, and I hope you can consider the ideas presented here.  Be aware that many return visits to this site will probably be necessary before one can truly appreciate and accept these ideas.  The increasing number of incoming readers may indicate both a desire to learn more, and a realization of some degree of usefulness. [Possibly, use it as a field guide for natural observers, to learn where to look, what to look for, and to connect the patterns.]

NOTE: Even if this theory is 100% WRONG, if it gives you MORE ACCURATE answers, use it until something better comes along.

The daily number of incoming visitors is impressive, and growing again.  On many recent days, the visitor count number at the bottom of the home page increased by over 200 in one day.  With my older stats program [that discontinued], that usually implied a greater [doubled]  number of total visitors, since many home visitors go directly to specific locations, and do not always visit the home page at each visit, to be counted when they do.

What I do not know is much more than that about the visitors.  I suspect that many are returning visitors, needing to re-visit to find out more info, and to look for more extensive info on the unique ideas to be found only here. [We are still searching for web-site visitor-analysis software to provide additional insights into who visits, when, for how long, and where they come-in from.]  I will also seek reader’s suggestions about what I can improve, and how to make your visits here more successful.

What I can say is, if this web-site were totally wrong, and hopelessly misleading, the number of visitors might peak once or twice, but would [and SHOULD] eventually fall-off to an imperceptible level.  I hope that the increasing numbers of incoming visitors remember what they read here, and then come away expecting to find very similar-type items mentioned in almost all of the most recent reports.

When they remember that they heard about the possible connections between the reported phenomena and Black-Holes C-R, novae, supernovae, quasars, Seyfert galaxies, and GRB’s, I know of no one who has been more condition-specific in what they expect to find, and where to look, to find (that matches reality) better than the C-R theory.

Nature keeps on giving such good gifts to the C-R theory, and so far, in 2013, this year has been no exception.  If I could bribe nature, with $1 billion in cash, given “under the table”, I probably could not have gotten any better results than we have already received, totally for free.  [Sadly, I do not have anywhere close to the $1 billion contemplated in this web-site’s yearly operating budget to pay those bribes with, anyway.]

For the skeptical, I would suggest that being perceived to be on the right track accounts for much more of the successes I present to you than does my “lucky guessing”, or my “just making-up the claims after the fact”, and figuring you home readers would not bother to check up on the ideas.

It is possible that I am overambitious, and that I am all too eager to attribute every newly discovered phenomena to some aspect of the C-R theory.  It would be much more difficult for me [if I were lying], to incorporate only those types of items the C-R theory alone claims are ongoing, into multiple scientist’s unbiased reports, and to leave out mentions to all of the phenomena which the C-R theory is not looking-for.  Independent scientists have no incentive whatsoever to make the C-R theory look good, or to place odd items in their reports which would seem to support C-R’s claims.

I still stand by the C-R theory’s expectations, and I continually find new reports which seem to indicate that the theory is on target, and has merit.  I try to mention them in the blog, for the world to see, and to publicly try to highlight and show-off the proposed new connections that mainstream science says are just not there.

In the most recent issue  of Astronomy magazine for June 2013, there was an article that science has finally verified that there is a connection between Black-Holes C-R and cosmic rays.  The article went on to show that there is some connection (or cause and effect) between the Black-Hole C-R and the output of cosmic rays, through some unknown mechanism.  Unfortunately, the article stopped there, and missed the bigger picture.  The C-R theory has been claiming just such a connection, in much more complete technical details, for the last 30 some years.

A Catastrophe  –  or  –  A Logical Process? {Which one do YOU choose?}

While, technically, it is not the Black-Hole C-R itself that creates the cosmic rays, but the manner in which the pent-up matter stored inside, {in the Neutral Zone C-R}, when it is suddenly and catastrophically  released, that actually creates cosmic rays.

Mainstream science has completely pre-rejected that new type of thinking, and would claim that the C-R theory is wrong on at least 3 major items. [Therefore: Triply unworthy of their consideration]   If they would humbly check the results vs. their expectations, they might just realize that it was their poor theories which cannot stand-up to the tests of time, if they ever actually got to go any Black-Hole C-R, to test the conditions there.

I do not mind home readers being skeptical, and holding off their judgment of the C-R theory until their own, personal results are in.  What I do object to is that scientists are so sure of their beliefs in the properties of a generic black hole that they pre-reject considering any other process before actually testing it.  One of the reasons I spend so much time showing readers where to look, what to notice, and how to think in new ways is that the scientists already rejected the C-R theory ideas before considering them.

While they do have a right to do so, it comes at the peril of their true understanding of how this universe works.  I have probably been too silent, and not nearly as adamant that one MUST use the C-R theory to understand HOW our universe works, or ACCEPT TOTAL failure.  {I do wish that this outcome of success was not so restrictive, but that IS the situation.}

Reluctantly, I must state that the two opposing world views are simply not reconcilable.  It is unfortunate that most of the world blindly accepts their “old” way of thinking. {i.e., what their fathers or grandfathers decided, back around 1929}

Scientists around 1919-30 used their expectations on GRAVITY {from theories popular back then} to JUMP to invalid conclusions.

Scientists, cosmologists and astronomers all refuse to consider that they have been fooled, or misled by their initial expectations.  I have tried to gently inform them where they went wrong, and show them why they believe what they do, and where their mistakes in thinking lie.  I apologize that I could not reconcile their old learning to readjust a parameter or two and proceed onward.

NO, one must discard an enormous amount of common thinking, and replace it with a new outlook, before one can understand the new ideas.  I simply lack the ability to make the new C-R theory ideas retro-compatible. [If anyone at home CAN do so, to make these new ideas more acceptable, I would not object.]

Mainstream science has been a “Junk Collector” when it comes to this universe.

It finally occurred to me that one simply cannot understand our universe WITHOUT using the C-R theory, period.  There are just too many differences to paper-over the areas, or smooth-out the wrinkles.  One must JUNK a huge portion of their current learning and thinking about this universe, and replace it with something newer and better. [or at least – different]

HINT: See the C-R theory for How gravity works, using curvature.

Io’s Volcanic Activity: Location, Location, Location  – or – The Tide IS Turning

There was an announcement from those who study such things, that Jupiter’s moon Io did not have it’s volcanoes in the right spots, where the tidal-flexing was maximum. {or where conventional theory expected them to be}  After studying the probable flex-patterns, or where the moon Io should be flexing, because of the tidal-drag, surprise, surprise, Io’s volcanoes weren’t located directly under there, but were some 30 degrees in latitude off.

This result was bad news for conventional theory, because they expected that most of the internal heating of Io, generated exclusively by the tides,  would directly underly the volcanoes.  It is good news for the C-R theory, because the C-R theory has publicly stated for many years, that it is the “unexpected contribution” of those pesky excessive electrical currents, running between Io and Jupiter, that should contribute a better share of the punch to Io’s spectacular volcanic spewing, showing off some extra OOMF into Io’s pyrotechnics.

OHM , OHM on the range,  – or – Cooking with Electricity, a SHORT (ing) story  –

and  – Just Face it: maybe more is going on here than what NASA expected.

There is a recurrent “flux-tube” current, cyclicly varying over Io’s 10 hour orbital period, surging up to 5 million amps at the peak.  I have also read elsewhere that NASA had measured a voltage potential of up to 400,000 volts across the face of Io.  If P=IE, [or Power, in watts, equals current, in amps, times the voltage, in Volts], and that figures out to add-in about 2 trillion watts to Io’s “electric chair”.

NOTE: The electrical current may not necessarily spread-out across the entire face of the moon, but might only heat the area directly under the current’s landing zone (or where the current is intercepted).

The last time I puzzled over that result (after hearing about the new findings), I also realized that those two trillion watts might not be spread-out evenly, all over that moon’s surface, but could be concentrated under where the current flows.  If that is as suspected, as a huge contributing factor, possibly THAT will be where the volcano rich region experiences the additional ELECTRICAL heating.  [Heating Io’s surface more like a standard electric kitchen range, than from the gravitational flexing of the moon’s crust.]

Sadly, since conventional theory IS NOT LOOKING for anything ELECTRICAL, like that direct cooking of Io’s surface to occur, as their “playbooks” disregard electrical activity of any kind, insight into cause and effect has escaped them, for now.  Their playbooks only accept the crust-flexing from Jupiter’s tidal drag as the sole culprit, guilty of heating Io enough to cause the underlying volcanoes.

Fortunately, the C-R theory is willing to be helpful, and to find areas where valuable [and successful?] insights could be welcomed.  However many future successes [and failures, too?] it will take, to get the C-R theory noticed?  I welcome any possibilities to show off the accuracy derived from our new mode-of thinking.  Nature proves generous in supplying phenomena which seem to use this manner of operation, if the reports from space are accurate.

I have mentioned in past blogs just where many of those abundant, excess electrons, come from, so I will skip that for now.

More ++POSITIVE++ Results!!  –  or  –  Just Rubbing Science the Wrong Way

In another article, conventional theory also noticed multi-ionized oxygen atoms in a supernova’s remains.  This is another area where the C-R theory might gain a future starring role, in suggesting just why this clue is POSITIVELY so important.  Another multiply-ionized element, Iron, was also in the news.  It seems that what the laboratory-measurements expected from Fe+6 were overstated, and were found to be 30% dimmer, when actually measured.

I have read elsewhere that iron ions, up to Fe+23, are frequently measured in supernova ejecta.  What this suggests is that SOMETHING in that process is ionizing the iron, many times over, stripping-off the electrons. [and I know a good candidate theory to provide a simple explanation for those positive charges, in abundance]

NOTE: If the electrons were simply rubbed-off at the accretion disk, and left on site, hanging around in close proximity to the site of the original ionization, as soon as the mixture cooled-off [with time], those same electrons would be attracted back to the positive charges, and re-combine.  If, however, those electrons were released, -possibly years, decades, centuries, or millennia earlier-, with the positive charges “hidden-away”, then those electrons might have self-repelled, been long dispersed, and they are no longer loitering-around, at hand, locally.

This phenomena is one of the exciting possibilities what the C-R theory says accounts for the incredible staying power in supernova multiple-ionization lifetimes.  This is an additional clue that there may be contributions from electrical activity causing significant influence to both initially trigger the supernova’s BANG, and then, to maintain the expansion rates of the supernovae, long after the cooldown alone should have occurred.

Just GO with the FLOW – or  – Herd Enough?  – or  – A Moving Experience

There are many cases of unexpectedly high velocity gas flows, featuring both ionized hydrogen, and neutralized hydrogen gas, flowing around within galaxies, nebulae, and around stellar nurseries.  What better way to BLOW OFF some gas than to create enormous regional imbalances in flowing electrical charges, and let those stray charges herd gas clouds away from the freed-electrons outside Black-Holes C-R, and shock-excite shell-centered rings expanding outward from nova, supernova, … on up in size, powered by the positive punch of pressurized protons, freed-up when the release is triggered.

Mainstream science is baffled by these moving gas clouds, and has no clue as to what force moves these enormous clouds of gasses around.  There are inward-flowing, and outward flowing currents of hydrogen, which stellar “heat” and the near-vacuum conditions in space cannot account for or redistribute.

The C-R theory regards these streaming “passing gasses”, flowing as a direct consequence of electrical charge-powered operations occurring under a C-R theory-inspired scenario, rather than some foul {smelling?} play.

Yet once again, the C-R theory can provide a simple-to-understand new explanation for countless instances of known phenomena that lacks any adequate causative mechanism under the standard theories.

A Thud of a DUD, when your supercomputer’s results for a supernova wimp out, maybe they’re RIGHT.

Supposedly, modern supercomputer simulations of some of the most massive and violent supernovae end-up producing a thud or a dud, with insufficient OOMPH contributed by the energy gained from the fusion of heavier elements to overcome the large contributions from gravity when a mass gets that huge.

Fortunately, the C-R theory can yet again come to the rescue, and explain just why those massive supernovae get prodded to instability by the Black-Hole’s C-R diet of (ionized) protons and neutrons.  It is the sudden, cataclysmic, release of those pent-up charges, freeing them from their “forced neutrality” confinement, which then allows natures full fury [or, second after anti-matter annihilation], to show just how propulsive this deliberate re-concentration of self-repelling positive charges can become, after they are yet again permitted to interact.  Note: This only occurs when nature’s “trick” of exploiting the sub-lightspeed escape velocities can be utilized.

CRITICAL NOTE: Electrical charges, on the same distance scale, can generate forces some 1040th power stronger than “wimpy” gravity.  Nature is not above using this fact creatively, with an innovation unique to the C-R theory.

Since mainstream science is totally unaccepting of even a possibility that this scenario could occur, because their textbooks say no, they have missed the true usefulness, thus the necessary ABUNDANCE of large numbers of Black-Holes C-R in this universe.

If it were not for natures abundant gifts, displayed throughout this universe, showing-off the results of those types-of interactions, which only the C-R theory suspects, the theory would be in trouble.  What comes to the rescue is the abundant nature of phenomena that only the C-R theory can successfully connect-in, in a believable, yet easy to understand scenario, where the mainstream alternative expects nothing.

The displays of polarized light in every em-band frequency, from radio to microwaves, to light, to X-rays, up to gamma rays, strongly suggest the presence of abundant magnetic fields to CAUSE this polarization.  The high levels of near-lightspeed, collimated beams of something [HINT: think electrons], fleeing the Black-Hole C-R are departing, imbued with energies between 15-30% of the Black-Hole’s C-R total energy output.

The Cat’s in the bag (of tricks), or What Fur? –  or  –  Rubbing Science the Wrong Way

In the conventional theories ideas, the sole separation of electrons entering a conventional black hole comes from the constant friction of atoms rubbing their electrons off as they traverse the accretion ring, something like the original process of rubbing an amber rod with cat fur, produced an accumulation of electrical charge on the rod.  This purely physical-mechanical process was fine for producing a limited number of free electrons, which could then be used to produce a spark, or to store-up the stray charges in a Leyden jar for an increasingly large spark. [That’s what its fur (..for), pun intended]

While the C-R theory has no problem with this contribution from friction, the true, industrial-strength application, stripping [almost?] 100% of the electrons from the incoming gasses using a “brand-name” Black-Hole C-R, then storing the ionized nuclei in such a state where NO OUTSIDE knowledge of the accumulating charge inside is permitted to communicated outside; is more “nonsense” than the standard theories can accept, or tolerate.  They cannot or will not allow even a mental “test” questioning their concepts.

ONE, from ALL, and ALL, from ONE:  –  or  –  A More than 4 = GONE Conclusion

By scientists way of thinking, since all 4 of the known basic forces started out equal or the same at some 1096 degrees, they ALL behave the same way in the same situations.  Therefore, no electrical charge falling inside the Schwarzschild radius can be “hidden” inside.  Since there is absolutely NO external evidence hinting at a massive amount of ionized protons stored-up inside, that PROVES to them that none exist.

Therefore, mainstream science has overlooked the likelihood that nature DOES carefully exploit the situation, at the Black-Hole C-R, where the true innovation is used to it’s fullest potential, {but not in a “generic black hole”}.

I have covered it elsewhere, but I will mention that the C-R theory concludes that Gravity operates from a totally different mechanism than the other 3 forces.  Even though both gravity and electromagnetism are inverse square-type forces, they DO NOT operate the same when exiting from a Black-Hole C-R.

NOTE: I do not fault them for holding on to what they were taught, or for being skeptical about the C-R theory’s claims.  I do, however, lament their lack of openness to observe some profound insight, which nature has tried her darndest to reveal enough clues to demonstrate publicly and openly what does occur.

Even though we live in “The Digital Age”, Conventional theory is showing “The wrong Digit” to the C-R theory.

[HINT: Think vulgar, extreme disrespect, and maybe you’ll catch the hint.]

My task, it seems, is to try to communicate these new ideas to show the underlying simplicity of the process, the “interconnectedness” revealed in existing observations, and the overall usefulness to nature’s supremely creative recycling efforts.  Since I am probably thought of as an ignorant “fool” in the process, because I do not “know better”, I am stuck with an enormous treasure chest of observed results displaying exactly the traits which the C-R theory claims SHOULD be abundant, where science sees “Junk”.

Almost every month, new magazines and on-line articles show more electrical activity, excess charges, magnetic fields where none should be, gas flows at high speeds, multiple-positive ionizations from supernova explosions, lasting thousands of years after the temperatures should have cooled off, arrive for my notice.  I have rarely been disappointed, or unable to harvest some new gleanings which almost scream “The C-R theory MUST be right!!!”

If I am over-reaching, or simply making up connections as I go, and there is nothing there to support these claims, then the home reader might be justified in rejecting these claims, too.  If, on the other hand, what I am claiming DOES occur, occurs everywhere, then the home reader should also notice reports I am not yet aware of, featuring similar findings.  If these ideas only work on the existing items we have pointed-out, they are still useful.  If they apply to all future, unknown items, that extends their usefulness.

Either these processes DO occur, or they do NOT.  All I ask is an open mind, an honest try to understand what I am trying to communicate, and not to worry about the deepest theory, but choose the simplest path that fits ALL the data.

Can you at home find similar occurrences in newer reports, older observations, or brand new findings?  If so, then let your imagination follow my “logic trail” and listen carefully to the arguments.  Give these new ideas a fair shot, but treat them no more carefully than any of the competing, existing ideas.  I would accept for these ideas to get roughhoused a bit in the process.

If these ideas resonate with you, and you start to comprehend the whole cycle, then “see or understand” a whole new layer of organization, and can sense the “plan, already at work”, that should help you to begin to see the connections between things which the “experts” totally miss.  If you are unable, or unwilling to give them a try, you should be no worse-off than your current levels of understanding.

Please regard the current “experts” comments carefully, as true, when they tell you: “We haven’t a clue why these things happen.”  Please take them at their word when they say they do not know what is going on, or Why. Then, listen to the C-R theory, when it says, let me try to show you what IS going on, because the ideas seem to work out OK. [Whether or not they are theoretically “right”, if they do exist, then understand them.]

It might just be easier to accept the C-R theory, without questioning it, at least to figure-out the ongoing processes, than to wait until you can change your beliefs enough to accept the ideas.  Use it because it works, and go with the flow, instead of fighting the ideas because they are not what you have been taught.

Again, feel free to communicate with me using the response form at the end of the home page.  If this theory helps YOU to understand more of what you see, that is the goal.  Thank you again for visiting, or more so for re-visiting, to deepen your understanding.

Jerry Reynard    June 2, 2013

April Fool’s Day Blog for 2013

I delayed so long coming up with a new blog, I decided to hold off until April Fool’s Day to post a new blog.  I will cover a few recent developments first, then I will return to a common theme for the C-R theory; that most of the world’s scientists are already completely fooled on some of the most basic properties of this universe, and that April Fool’s Day could have been designed (or designated) in their “honor” [if being designated as a fool is an honor].

I would also like to thank the visitors to this web site, now that we have passed the 70,000 visitor, 71,000th visitor, and 72,000th visitor mark.  Whether anything from this site’s new ideas is sinking-in (or just floundering), there is no where else you can find these ideas in such a concentrated form.  NOTE: Whether you accept or reject these ideas, you may freely re-post them elsewhere without needing extra permission from me.  I am more interested in establishing these ideas as better alternatives to what is commonly believed.  I would hope that some, if not all of our home-readers will eventually come to accept these ideas.

Is the Standard Theory already so “April Fooled” by Nature, unfortunately not just one day per year, but 365 (and a quarter more plus change) days each year, that they cannot tell the difference, or “get the joke”?

I might try to prepare a list of the types of phenomena that the C-R theory pathways should provide a much better explanation for.  Standard theory has pre-rejected these ideas, without ever discussing or testing them, as they do not fit-into the currently accepted “mold” of the standard Big Bang based scenario.

They are so “April Fooled” by nature, they believe that this universe is expanding, and accelerating-in it’s expansion, without any “need” for an acceptable energy-source to pay for it, and they believe that the Big Bang has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt.

They accept that “almost” the coldest thing in this universe, the 2.7K background radiation, is the ultra-cooled [ chilling for over 13.8 billion years] remnant of the Big Bang, without ANY consideration that some alternative explanation might also be rational (and possible to accept, scientifically).

The C-R theory predicts that, elsewhere within this universe, the 2.7K background radiation’s temperature will measure differently, dependent upon the measurer’s location.  The C-R theory also predicts that the 2.7K background radiation will not cool off further, as measured from earth, anytime in the future, say 1 billion years ahead, 5 billion years ahead, 1 trillion years ahead, or any time thereafter.

What a close race?

A recent item in the news released in 2013 stated that scientists previously measured 3 gamma ray photons, at different frequencies, each one arriving from a supernova blast, some 7 billion years beforehand, within 1 millisecond of each other.  The most fascinating part of this detection event is that is puts severe limits to the amount of random “energy changes” that could have been made to the individual photons during the entire voyage.  It also suggests that the speed of light is very consistent between differing frequencies, to a remarkably small percentage of the total trip, from location to location, traversing through varying gravitational field-strengths.

In conventional reasoning, as the photon enters a different value gravitational field, the photon either gains energy everytime as it enters into a greater gravitational field, or loses energy, as it climbs back out of those more intense fields, everytime.  Where the C-R theory ideas are clearly different, no change is made to the photon’s energy values as it travels about at lightspeed.  Instead, it is the final measurer’s energy values that change as they move about into lesser energy, or greater energy locations.  Those “changed” measurers then measure those photons with different “reference standards”.  Instead of those photons changing their values, the photon simply proceeds, at the “local” speed of light, [which the C-R theory claims actually changes from location to location], until it is intercepted.

This 1 millisecond variation (or less) for 3 “different-energied” photons over a 7 billion year-long journey, from the same initial supernova, limits the enroute energy variations that each photon could have “randomly” incorporated.  I have read another article that commented that those racing-photons are also strong indications that spacetime is analog, and not digital, down at the quantum level, to justify that “simultaneous arrival time” expectation from Einstein’s original ideas.

I would be interested in finding any conventional assessment of the probable amounts of “randomness” expected in those same photons if they were each continually being “energy-adjusted”, (or changed), along their journey.  I think that the 1 millisecond or less variation in photon arrival time bodes very well for the C-R theory’s specific ideas.

If anyone thinks that the 3 photon’s arrival times bodes much better for the C-R theory’s ideas, that those same photons are not changed in any way over the full voyage, (except for being deflected by curvature, and having their direction slightly changed), they might be right.  If anyone has ever played with laser pointers, and tried fighting with them as light sabers, one should notice that there is absolutely no intersection pressure or feedback (or Star Wars type noises) when the laser lightbeams “collide”.  I would also propose that it is just as impractical to change a photon’s energy while it is cruising on a path at the speed of light, [by intersecting potential input energies, travelling at lightspeed, from any angle and from any direction], as it would be to check and change your car’s tire pressures while you were cruising down a highway at high speeds.

I was reading the March issue of Astronomy magazine, and there was an article about a new observatory constructed to look for high energy particle showers, generated as a by-product of ultra high energy cosmic rays (UHECR’s).  One of the most interesting parts of that article was that some observers now believe that the UHECR is a highly++ (positively) ionized iron atom.  Conventional theory has absolutely no good idea of any known process that could impart so much energy into that cosmic ray, without also tearing apart the stressed nucleus of that atom, in the process.

One of the C-R theory ideas that could help here is the idea that the Black-Hole C-R strips off all the electrons from the matter it eats, and rejects those electrons.  All of the matter eaten, the protons and neutrons, is stored-up inside in a neutralized manner (trapped inside because of the speed-of-light speed limit).  After concentrating matter in this ultra-ionized manner, some type of catastrophic release mechanism allows this trapped matter to overcome gravity [described elsewhere in the C-R theory].  The catastrophic-release events could be, a coronal mass ejection, nova, supernova, quasar, seyfert galaxy, active galactic nucleus (AGN), on up to a gamma ray burst (GRB).

The point here is, that as a natural process, easily explained by the C-R theory, there is a very simple causative mechanism which provides a plausible pathway to achieve the highest energy cosmic rays, up to the observed 300 quintillion electron volts (eV.) energy level.  A single ionized iron atom, at that energy level,  travels at such a high speed that it’s impact energy is equivalent to that of a major league tennis ball.

Although conventional theory claims that, because of the cosmic background radiation, the UHECR’s should continually be losing energy, by drag, so they cannot have travelled in from far away; that may not be the case.  In a possible new idea (new to me, within the last month), if space is indeed permeated with huge quantities of excess negative charges (freed-up, or ionized single electrons), those charges may well provide the secret to explain why those high speed UHECR’s persist in their energy extremes, instead of fade-out with distance-away.

It occurred to me that, especially for those multiply-ionized iron atoms, something like Fe +23, could be attracted-in [ahead] to the dispersed clouds of free electrons.  As those electrons approach and attract the highly positive ionized iron atom, the positive ion either increases (or else maintains) its high energy.  As the electrons bunch together as the multi-positive particle approaches, once it passes, those same re-bunched, more concentrated electrons will also provide a kick-push away, [at their energy-expense] after the multi-positive attraction has passed-by.  NOTE: If the highly ionized multi-positive particle was not moving, but static, the same electrons would not provide such a non linear pull-push mechanism at their expense, but would symmetrically pull equally from all directions, giving the static positive charge at rest, no such advantage.

The interesting thing here is that the C-R theory might yet again provide some unexpected, but reasonable insights into known phenomena, helping science (or at least, our “informed”, incoming home-readers) to obtain understandings not available elsewhere.  Mainstream science is definitely not looking for the types of items that the C-R theory predicts.

After doing a nice humorous item for last year’s April Fool’s Day blog, I thought it would be about time to get back to one of the key, central themes of the C-R theory, that most of the world has been fooled, big-time, about some of the conditions of this universe.

I try to cover this issue from a new perspective in almost every blog, but it probably is most appropriate on April Fool’s Day.  There are so many areas where the C-R theory differs substantially with mainstream science, that I might just try to list some of the main ones below.

1. The biggest difference is a totally new way to understand gravity.  This is critical, and just not available anywhere else.  It is often covered in recent blogs, so just a mention of it here.

2. Nature NEEDS two different “inverse square”-type forces, electromagnetism and gravity, BECAUSE they ACT differently.

3. Because gravity is indirectly caused, it is expressed outside of a Black-Hole C-R, whereas electrical charge DOES NOT couple-out from inside a Black-Hole C-R, as regular science believes.

4. Nature specifically exploits the difference in mass between the “flighty” electrons and the much more massive protons and neutrons, using the extreme gravity of a Black-Hole C-R to separate electrons and sort nuclei, by mass.  This obvious difference between them affects what happens at the Schwarzschild radius [the outermost portion of the Black-Hole C-R.]

5. Black-Holes C-R strip off the electrons from their dinner, and store-up the protons and neutrons immediately inside, in an electrically neutralized state.

6. Spare, excess electrons, noticed outside of Black-Holes C-R, are evidence of their diet.  Those stripped-off electrons are also the root-cause of those high-speed jets, seen  emanating from larger Black-Holes C-R.

7. Those positive charges which accumulate inside Black-Holes C-R also accumulate, and eventually explode.  This causes novae, supernovae, quasars, AGN’s, Seyfert galaxies, and GRB’s.  All these phenomena are “helped” by this new option.

8. The complete electrical currents caused by this C-R like process generate so much electrical imbalances, that the shapes, and holding power of the spiral arms of entire galaxies are affected.

9. Rather than a “mysterious” dark matter, simple electromagnetic interactions are the real “culprit” in galaxy stability, and no such things as dark matter are ever needed.

10. There was no Big Bang.

11. Our universe is stable, not expanding, and not violating Conservation of Energy in the process.

12. The 2.7 K background radiation has nothing to do with a Big Bang.  It is more like a waterfall roar [but coming equally from all directions].

13. The time rate is DIFFERENT in this universe.  It runs the fastest at the center [the most blueshifted region], runs at earth’s time rate from earth’s location, and runs slower outwards.  The CAUSE of the time-rate differences is the different strengths of gravity, NOT acceleration.

14. The time-rate difference directly “stabilizes” our universe.  Outlying matter cannot just “fall” inwards, but must acquire more energy, [or energy to supply that mass with a greater “real time-rate”], to be allowed in, to approach the center.

Sorry, but I have run out of real time to include more up-to-date items in this blog, so they will have to wait until the next blog.  Please let me know if you would rather have much shorter, condensed  blogs-lite, rather than the normal, multi-page blogs I normally produce.

Jerry Reynard    First posted April 1, 2013, edited and corrected April 23, 2014

December, 2012- January, 2013 Blog

December, 2012 and January, 2013 Blog

I would like to welcome our 59,000th, 60,000th, 61,000th, 62,000th, 63,000th, 64,000th and 65,000th visitors, belatedly to this web site.  Welcome to everyone else who visited, too.  Those 7,000-some visitors were just those arriving at the home page.  Some uncounted readers went directly to other pages in the theories, PDF’s, or blogs, and do not figure in the home page’s totals.  To be fair, I log in at least once a day onto the site, and it counts me each log-in.

I would like to put in a plug for the only known contest in all of science that might give one of this web-site’s readers the only opportunity in this millennium to name one of the basic properties of this universe for science.  NOTE: For now, mainstream science does not recognize that the energy-value properties of mass in this universe change with position.  Consider: the mass’s height in a gravitational field affects it’s energy level, here on earth, from a maximum amount of time-clocking, and energy-content at the center of the earth, to the least energy location, [approximately at the Core Mantle Boundary, or CMB], where curvature is greatest, and time on earth runs the slowest, for the minimum energy, real-time position.

[NOTE: The standard Newtonian textbook answer is, time runs slowest at the surface of the earth, and runs faster as one approaches the center of the earth.  This WOULD be the case IF ONLY our earth had an averaged-out density, uniform throughout, as the standard textbooks use in their examples.]

This missed value-change is both good news, and bad news, in some aspects, for our readers.  It is good news in that, since science does not believe-in this case [where the actual, physical properties of mass vary with position], so they are not looking-for it, or competing with everyone who IS looking for those variable properties, therefore, they are quite unlikely to usurp the naming privilege or beat us to the punch.  It is also bad news, in that, it might take many years before this new property is “universally” recognized [pun intended], worldwide, by everyone else.

GIVE THAT PROPERTY A PROPER  NAME:

I established and described the new naming contest to some extent in the last blog, but I would like to use this blog to go over more of the best reasons why the C-R theory believes that this universe does have such a property.  NOTE: Even though the C-R theory does claim that this property exists, there are several possibilities for HOW this property actually manifests itself, and it may be years before science can determine just how this energy-content, value-change takes place.

The most important thing, for now is: To give this property-change a suitable name, that will hold-up, and that can be respected, after the property-change is independently confirmed.  It should be relatively easy to pronounce, spell, and remember, and it should not yet rule-out any of the viable candidates, or possibilities for how the property changes, unless we can determine how the value changes before finalizing the name.

For the benefit of those readers new to this blog, and for those who did not yet read the last blog, the C-R theory has instituted a naming contest, to give an acceptable scientific name to the [undiscovered] property of this universe that allows a mass to change it’s energy-worth.  It probably happens directly, because of the energy input into, or the energy extracted from that mass, when it is either lifted-up, or dropped-down.

I have said so many times, but let me state again, the C-R theory maintains that our universe changes the physical characteristics of mass (and of it’s energy-equivalence, too), so that a mass which has been lifted-up, [in this example, let us use 1 meter], is worth more-energy, in terms of E=mc2, than that same mass was, when it was sitting 1 meter lower.  By a non-coincidence, the amount of energy difference IS EXACTLY the same amount of energy that was needed to lift the mass, up, against gravity.

DIRECT DEPOSIT?: (or, unlimited overdraft?)

There are several important benefits to be gained if this direct energy-change is the case, and it eases our understanding of the process of gravity.  First off, gravity, instead of operating as an external field, does not need to “somehow” supply or extract this energy “out of thin air”, [or, out of a non-existent ether], on demand, or to account for it’s exact energy-value amount.  The C-R theory claims that, since the mass itself changes, and picks-up or physically incorporates this energy gain into it’s internal structure.   It could also spend just enough additional real-time in a faster-running timeframe, so that the

E=mc2 (time rate difference, before to after) comes either from the slightly-faster “c” speed, or the slightly longer amount of real-time the object “exists”, as compared to some external reference frame.

RELATIVITY: If “c” ain’t FIXED, it’s broken.

NOTE: The theory of relativity does not expect ANY incremental difference in “c”, but was defined using a non-changing lightspeed as a fixed benchmark to establish the theory.  In it’s starting hypothesis, scientists after Einstein have built their entire understanding on: “that lightspeed is the always exactly the same wherever light is found, and wherever it travels to,”.  They ASSUMED there was no “preferred reference frame” for time or lightspeed.

When they move to a different location, [height-wise], and then measure lightspeed there, it always measures the same, to the measurer, locally.

What they forgot to account-for in the process is that when they move upwards, THEIR own [measuring] reference time-frame changes too, after they add energy-value to it, and theirs is no longer the same “standard” that it was.  If additional energy must be added in to their test-reference equipment to move it [by lifting it up] into it’s “more-energetic” reference frame, can it still be ONLY worth it’s original [starting] value?

Let me state that one cannot understand this variable-energy property fully, unless one also understands that it is based upon a new concept of gravity in this universe.  Gravity works as an after-effect, which actually shows up AFTER the change has occurred.  Gravity is what already occurred, and not the real, direct cause.  I’ll save that explanation for another, later blog.

In addition, we live INSIDE a closed universe.  Our home (this universe) has always been closed-off, and always will continue to do so.  It is the exact same size now as it has always been.

Can I explain to you just why our universe has been so misunderstood, and how this has taken place?  HINT: I attempt to do so in every blog, one or two chunks at a time, and at every opportunity.

IMPORTANT NOTE: One cannot just “learn” his new concept from the existing physics and cosmology textbooks, because they all reject this “new” idea, for now.  Only here, at the C-R theory, can one find information about this new concept presented favorably, discussed logically, with conservation of energy also taken into account.  Afterwards, the C-R theory will present ways to try to help you discover how to try to check it out.  You should also notice areas where you can note events already known-about, and compare them with current events.

In order to clarify some of the modern, conventional beliefs on a closed universe, it becomes necessary to create our own definition. [The standard, textbook definition, uses outmoded concepts, which are probably wrong, and which do not make good sense.]

STATEMENT: The C-R theory needs a new definition of “A Closed Universe”* [*Our competition believes that this cannot be the case, and their definition of the Closed Universe starts off with the premise that such an object is inherently unstable, and must either expand or collapse.  They suppose this universe cannot prevent itself from collapsing.]  If their concept is WRONG, EVERY IDEA derived from it is wrong, too.

OUR [“C-R theory”] DEFINITION of a Closed Universe

A Closed Universe is a sealed-off volume of space, containing EXACTLY the sufficient amount of mass, at a proper density, to achieve a speed-of-light [“c”] escape velocity immediately inside, at the outer boundary. {The Schwarzschild radius}  VERY IMPORTANT: The net escape velocity decreases steadily while going inward, towards the center of the closed universe.  The escape velocity’s value will be minimum [or ZERO], at the center of that universe. {More correctly, ZERO from the mass of the universe, plus an external value, if any is present.}

Not a SNAP decision:

NOTE: It is NOT a coincidence that the closed universe contains exactly enough mass to close-off that universe, [or spacetime inside], it is a certainty, and the REASON that spacetime is closed off, because this inside mass is “trapped inside” right after the critical density are achieved*. *[EXAMPLE: Think of a mousetrap, snapping shut, as soon as the mouse triggers the action by going for the cheese.  Once the trap snaps shut, this also inactivates the mouse, forever, saving the cheese.]

{ANALOGY: It Is Just like it is no coincidence that a 1 Liter container of water from a factory contains exactly 1 liter of water, it has exactly what it takes to make it full.  It is automatically closed-up and sealed [capped-off] as soon as the desired threshold is achieved, by design.}

NOTE: As soon as the outermost curvature reaches the escape velocity of “c”, this closes-off, [caps or seals-up], the inside portion.  What is inside remains inside, and never gets added-to again.  Any new additions of mass consumed can only go straight into the Neutral Zone C-R, described elsewhere in the C-R theory.

For the record, in any closed universe, just like for any solid object, there is one, and only one, exact center, and there are also outside edges (or boundaries), leading up to the start of the Schwarzschild radius.  At the exact center, time there runs faster than anywhere else, and objects there will be blueshifted to everywhere else, when seen from elsewhere inside, [by us, on earth, for instance].  HINT: If we can see ANY volume of concentrated, blueshifted mass when we are inside this closed universe, then, WE ARE NOT at that universe’s center!!!

Suggestion: The Great Attractor is such a blueshifted volume, to us, the only part of this universe where objects are normally blueshifted with respect to us (unless they are actually moving towards us).  NOTE: The Great Attractor is really attracting nothing, and is a natural result of operation within a closed universe.

POINT: The Great Attractor appears blueshifted to us, without it necessarily moving, pulling or sucking us towards it.  It’s time (there) just runs faster than our time does (here) for us.

COMPARISON: Conventional theory needs a brand-new anomaly class to explain away the Great Attractor’s mass.  There is one, and only one Great Attractor, which should be a moral difficulty for non-isotropic space, where there is supposed to be no preferred reference frame.

Second POINT: If there IS one anomaly, there should also be many others, elsewhere else. [Otherwise, there is only one “preferred” Great Attractor, which the C-R theory claims coincides with our universe’s center.]

NOTE: Science has NOT found anywhere near the concentrated amount of mass at the Great Attractor to CAUSE the anomaly’s effect here, based upon what we’ve found there. {There should be enough mass there, to pull us towards that location, as distant from there as we are, here on earth.}

Third POINT: There is also no infalling of masses attracted inward, from the far side, from the masses also located behind the Great Attractor.  The objects, [masses], on it’s far side are NOT simultaneously being pulled-in towards that location, too.  This is a very important clue, which nature has shown us, available in plain sight.

A Simpler Alternative:

A (numbered) List of some Reasons Why A Closed Universe “fits” better, for what we do see in OUR universe.

1. Objects at the center of a Closed Universe, [also known as “The Great Attractor” in the big universe] are the most blueshifted, with lesser blueshifts on objects further away from the center*, but closer than earth.  (*The further-out from the center, distance-wise, the lesser the blueshift’s range will be.)

2. There is no infall in, towards the Great Attractor, from the masses back behind it, in all observations made there.  Despite the observed blueshifting, we are NOT being pulled towards there.  HINT: That means that the blueshift is time related, and not derived as the result of a Doppler shift.

3. Earth, and everyplace else on a sphere of the radius equidistant from “The Great Attractor”, will run at the same real-time rate.  This may someday be observed specifically. [HINT: That might already be archived in the existing data, if a sufficiently detailed map can be cataloged.]

4. Further out, towards the outside edges (or, as far out as we can see), objects are more redshifted (or slowed-down) with increasing distance.  NOTE: Most of the objects we DO see in our universe are in this redshifted class.

5. Regardless of the concentration of mass clumping seen at great distances, far out in this universe, there is only a modest variation in the background levels of radiation, measured in millionths of a degree.  The temperature of the background radiation is NOT modulated in any way by this mass clumping.

This new view is more compatible with: everything inside this universe, at larger distances, already is [nearly] perfectly at temperature equilibrium, in every direction, and always has been.

There should have been temperature fluxes dependent on contributions from the outer masses, with more redshift [slowdown] effect where the mass was the greatest.  This result definitely has not been the case.

Otherwise, for an expanding universe with constantly increasing expansion, the outermost regions should have been out of mutual communication range.  The thinking is,  because of expansion accelerating in all directions outward, outracing communications with everywhere-else, for 13.7 Billion years, the background temperatures should diverge in some directions.  Instead, temperatures do look nearly symmetrical, [seen from earth’s vantage point], in every direction, and the accumulated temperature differences are measured in millionths of a degree.  They should increase with increasing time, mass concentrations, and diverge widely.

This result is more compatible with the insides of a closed universe.

6. Our universe appears to be almost exactly full (of mass), at least, within two orders of magnitude.  This is no easy task, for our universe to still be nearly full, if our universe has expanded exponentially for 13.7 Billion years.  On the other hand, if our universe IS CLOSED-OFF, this universe then appears almost exactly filled BECAUSE IT IS now, EXACTLY FILLED, and always has been.

7. The self-stabilizing design of a closed universe prevents mass located outward from falling inward and collapsing.  This property permanently stabilizes the structure of our universe.* [*Barring deliberate human interference.]

8. Just as with any other, fixed “solid” mass we are familiar with, that inside mass is stable over time, neither increasing nor decreasing.

9. Not coincidentally, every Black-Hole C-R, by definition, has a closed-off, exactly critical mass at it’s center.  There may be at least “quadrillions” of Black-Holes C-R within this universe.  NOTE: Our Milky Way galaxy is estimated to have at least 20,000 lesser sized Black-Holes C-R within the central three light years around the center of the galaxy.

10. Theoreticians, is it easier to expand this universe, without having a source of energy to pay for it, or to change your perceptions, and try to find a simpler explanation?

11, Since the universe is closed-off, by our definition, the total entropy is contained safely, inside of the universe, and cannot decrease, or go “downhill” any further.  Therefore, our universe cannot just expand-away, or collapse inward.  This “sealed-off” property also keeps our total energy content approximately constant, and no internal energy ever leaks away or disappears.  HINT: Recycling does occur in this inside volume, so some amount of tradeoff is acceptable between randomness, or disorder, and order.

NOTE: If our universe was free to expand infinitely, and leak-away our energy content from the beginning, our universe COULD be doomed to a cold-dark, faded out future.  This IS NOT the case, however, with the C-R theory, and our universe functions just fine, recycling the randomness of matter inside, and confining the level of disorder.  This keeps the approximate level constant, with tradeoffs constantly regulating the overall, net entropy.

12. Ever since Edwin Hubble measured increasing redshifts with distance to far-out galaxies, science “gravitated” to the expanding universe explanation, instead of looking for a simpler alternative**. (**Since science discarded the closed universe idea, they embraced the theory of relativity, and the [Willem] de Sitter universe model, and/or expanding or contracting [unstable] universe model was accepted as a given, with increasing red shifts at a distance).

Next, outward from earth, in all directions, objects are found with increasing redshifts.  By conventional understanding, this is a result (or an artifact) from the expansion of this universe, where the universe expands faster, the further out one goes.  While this is not necessarily difficult, what really makes this tough to explain is that the universe also appears to be nearly full, within 2 orders of magnitude.  This should mean that the universe fills-up with more mass (and/or energy) as the universe expands.  This  makes the difficulty to explain the observed outcome nearly impossible to achieve, once conservation of energy is taken into account.

On the other hand, in the C-R theory, the increasing redshift at a distance is a property of the increasing curvature of matter, as one nears the outer edges.  NOTE: This increasing redshift has no constant energy-cost to us, but is provided free, as a basic, unchanging property of the universe.

This clearly visible property, that elsewhere IS NOT like earth, time-wise also makes matter nearer the outer edges WORTH LESS ENERGY [there], and thus, unable to simply “fall-in” towards the center. [unless the mass can acquire more energy, (which it simply DOES NOT HAVE)]

This “fact” makes a closed universe naturally stable, and impossible to collapse, when properly understood, by the C-R theory.  Quite unlike the Newtonian view or even the Willem de Sitter, or Georges LeMaitre view, where a universe must be either open or closed, expanding or collapsing, but can never be stable, without invoking another “mysterious force”, something called the cosmic constant.  The conventional, Newtonian view, mistakenly concludes that such a universe system must be naturally unstable, something like a giant house of cards, where the slightest disturbance will collapse the entire, flimsy structure.

 

THROW IN SOME FINE IRONY  or pun: [Just some STABLE thinking]

This is an IRONIC aside here, when one considers just how stable science has found the proton to be, where the half life of each individual proton must exceed over 1033 years, as measured by experiments observing large pools of water for possible proton instability.  No hints of proton decay have ever been observed.  How strange it is that mainstream science routinely accepts the proton’s stability, but cannot simply accept that our universe, too, which is stuffed with an estimated [approximately] 1080 protons (and probably about as many neutrons, too), should be thought-of as equally as stable?

Using the C-R theory, and gravitational curvature as a guide, one can see how nature automatically stabilizes the structure of this universe, and incorporates properties into it’s nature (or it’s natural state) that assure self-stability.  With the C-R theory, we should see a blueshifted volume, in one direction, with increasing redshifts in all directions (including, behind the Great Attractor).  HINT: We do.

NOTE: This universe NEVER needs additional [or externally stocked], energy sources to provide energy.  The energy content of this universe is stable, and because it is self-contained within it’s confines, and can never radiate-away elsewhere (as in: escape to anywhere outside of this universe’s inside), it never leaks away, or fades out, or winds down, with time.  In this case only, the net entropy of this universe (contained safely inside) is always constant, BECAUSE it is CONTAINED [and NOT EXPANDING away].

While I will not cover most of this trapped [constant] entropy example in this blog, the basic properties of matter are so constructed as to practically recycle, and restore entropy to both matter and energy over the long term.  That topic is covered within the C-R theory, for those interested readers who wish to find more about this concept.

Where this all fits-in, the properties on this earth vary with location change.  Even with a mere 33 cm. boost, time runs measurably faster, referenced from the old height.  This means that spacetime everywhere else also should not be identical in all directions, and therefore, the changes to the properties of space, [i.e., our universe], must account for the actual differences we do see.

NOTE: The C-R theory starts with a whole different set of assumptions about what the properties of this closed universe are like, and which also visually agrees with what is actually seen.

 

Some of the most profound starting assumptions the C-R theory uses are:

1.  There NEVER was a Big Bang, or a start to our universe. [There were, however, lesser supernovae, that behaved somewhat like mini-Big Bangs, on a much more local level, but which were and still are ongoing.]

2.  The 2.7K background radiation is the “averaged-out” sum of the day to day operations within this universe, but is continually replenished, and will never “cool-down” with time.  This 2.7K was mistaken for a Doppler-shifted {cooled-down} starting remnant of the Big Bang, cooled for 13.7 Billion years.  It was just accepted, without proof, and without questions.

3.  This universe ALWAYS existed, and there never was a real beginning*. [* The earth’s existence may have happened more recently, including our full solar system.]

4.  The 2.7K IS NOT cooling-down with time, but will ALWAYS measure at 2.7K, as seen from earth’s location.

5.  Seen from elsewhere in this universe, the 2.7K background radiation WILL change, and will measure differently, depending on where in this universe the viewer or measurer resides.  NOTE: The background temperature value will also remain constant at those different locations, and those values will not vary [cool-off] with increasing time as seen from THERE.

6.  Only as seen from The Great Attractor, our universe will appear identical to what the theory of relativity expects this universe to look like, seen from everywhere inside.  Everything at a distance will appear with an increasing redshift, in all directions, and NO volumes of blueshifts will be seen.

7.  When this universe is observed from any other vantage point, all volumes of spacetime closer-in to the Great Attractor will appear blueshifted, while everything else more distant will still appear to be redshifted, in ALL directions, equally.

8.  Further out from earth’s vantage point, when looking back inside, towards the center, the volume that will comprise the Great Attractor, from there,  will appear increasingly blue, and vastly larger.  [We will have to travel to elsewhere to observe it.]

9.  Our universe’s size and volume are stable, and remain relatively unchanging with time, although individual components like stars and galaxies will interact, and recycle over a very long scale.

10.  The structure of our universe is stable, gravitationally, and CANNOT POSSIBLY collapse inward.  The structure is also stable, over time.

I will not attempt to justify all of those items from this blog.  They are each covered [though not necessarily in that order], in the C-R theory.

Just say: COOL IT!!

Of course, the easiest way to tell the difference in the 2.7K background, is to wait a billion years, and measure for both possibilities again.  If there is NO difference in the two temperatures, [the starting 2.7 K, and the ending one], after 1 billion years elapsed time, and the background radiation still measures the same 2.7K, the C-R theory is correct.  If the background radiation has cooled-down by about 1/14th, or is at 13/14 of the starting value, [as it is NOW measured at 2.7K today, from earth], and measures about 2.5K in one billion years, the C-R theory is wrong, and possibly exists that the Big Bang, or it’s successor, could be right on this one point.

Just say: Wait a minute, BUT NOT much MORE!!!:

Quite probably, even the way-above-average home reader, patience-wise, will find that a 1 billion year time interval is too substantial to wait, just to sway their judgement.  NOTE: In the short time this background radiation has been observed, there is far too little ongoing change measured to guess or to know.  HINT: Mainstream science IS NOT looking for any amount of observable cool-off in the 2.7 K anyway, so they are unlikely to find it.

Finally, BACK TO THE CONTEST

To get back to the contest, the C-R theory wants to find a suitable, scientific sounding name or term, capable of holding-up for at least the next 1,000 years, to describe this energy-variable property of mass, varying by position.

NOTE: I discussed in the last blog that I do not (yet) know if this property-change in energy is analog and continuous, or discrete and quantized, at the smallest scales.  Is it partially dimensional, something fractal-like*, where the dimensionality increases [or decreases] incrementally, at the smallest possible scales, thus allowing a net, “capacity-change-like” increase [or decrease] in energy, or time gained [or lost]?

[* My current suspicion is that this universe’s energy-change property of a mass is fractal-like, literally increasing or decreasing the dimensionality of this universe.  On the micro-miniature scales, energy {as real-time} is added-on, or trimmed-back, as, when curvature increases, in a more intense gravity.  To consider just how small this magnitude of change is, just look at the 1 part in 1016th time increase gained when an atomic clock is lifted-up by about 1 meter.]

The proposed new property-name should hold-up well whatever the ultimate “cause” turns-out to be.  NOTE: If this property change indeed is the case, it makes it far easier to understand just why a mass could only drop to the MAXIMUM curvature, where that location ALSO corresponds to the MINIMUM energy location.  It could not continue to accelerate back into lesser levels, especially not all the way back to ZERO curvature at the center, as the Newtonians have been lead [better yet, indoctrinated and brainwashed] to believe, unless it gained the additional energy needed to travel there..

WHAT’S IN A SCIENTIFIC NAME?

The winning new name could be based upon a prominent scientist or mathematician’s name [but not using the same names again that are already honored-by and identified-with other property measurements, like Newtons or Plancks].  The new term could also be an acronym, a word-like mnemonic derived from abbreviations of a short phrase or description.

The term could be playful or punful, or based off of some link in literature to an existing historical or fictional figure, or connected by a Lewis-Carrollian-type of logic, poking gentle [or not so gentle] fun at the establishment or the status-quo. [There could be said to be something “Cheshire Cat”-like about the property, as it blends-in to the background, or disappears, and “covers it’s tracks”.  When science looks-for it, or looks-at it, it seemingly vanishes into nothingness.]

A more biting type of satire, such as Jonathan Swift used, might also be acceptable, but comes closer to crossing the fine-line towards offending some {or most} of the intended target audience, angering them at the C-R theory in the process.  I would, instead, rather gently include them in to the jokes rather than use the dear home readers as the intended targets of intellectual barbs.

While I could “sell-out” to a sufficiently-high bidding egomaniac or commercial entity, and surrender the naming rights to a [short term] commercial interest, the relatively short-lived-lives of many commercial companies, which regularly get bought-up, renamed, or sold-off, to have their “good”-name discarded, is not a promising role-model for naming this type of proposed term, that is intended [and needed], to last for at least the next 1,000 years.

Normally, the author or originator of the idea has sole claim on this naming right, but in an egalitarian fashion, I have decided to harness the vast creativity of the entire pool of our home readers to chime-in, and propose their favorite word or term-candidates.  {I would be tempted to apologize if later in this millennium if someone else starts an additional contest to name yet another newly discovered property of this universe, but I would not count on it happening again.}

A TERM of Endearment (to our home readers)

Most of all, I would like to find a new term that seems enjoyable to say, pleasantly suited for slow-cogitation or “pondering-over” repeatedly, while the true usefulness of the concept (of energy-value of a mass changing with altitude or vertical position), soaks in and sprouts.  Again, while I really do not know just HOW the universe “adjusts” matter’s properties, the C-R theory almost demands that the mass itself changes in a subtle way, increasing as it is lifted-up, increasing it’s energy content, or decreasing as it is dropped down, shedding kinetic energy, proportionately to real time lost.

NOTE: It is NEVER the “gravitational field” itself that is doing “the work” (of changing the mass’s energy levels).  It is, rather, the ability of a mass to “store-up” or “release” [or shed], the energy difference directly, that the true energy-change takes place.  HINT: Consider a huge dam, storing or releasing minute amounts of water on a very small scale, at nearly imperceptible level changes, when it is compared to it’s total capacity.

By the time the universe “modulates-in or -out” the changes to a mass, all the way out to the outer edges, where time completely stops, (at least as a “measurable or detectable” quantity), that whole process drastically changes the energy-worthiness of the mass.  Once that mass enters into the Neutral Zone C-R, that unique volume of spacetime where the escape velocity exceeds lightspeed, no interactions of any kind are possible.  This effectively neutralizes matter, positionally, and traps it in the lowest possible [real time] energy location.

What is very important to notice is that, ALL matter at the outer edges is worth much less energy than that same mass would have, if it was moved nearer to the center.  This difference totally prevents “any-old mass” from outlying areas elsewhere, from “just dropping in” for an unexpected visit to the center, as the Newtonian competition would be “EXPECTED” to easily do.  This “energy lack, or absence”, prevents our universe from simply collapsing inward .

Because the mass, existing nearer the outer edges, is worth so much less energy, without acquiring [new] additional energy from somewhere else, {and that any additional energy is just NOT normally available}, this completely stabilizes the structure of this universe, in a way IMPOSSIBLE for a Newtonian believer to understand or to even accept, [as they have been brought-up to DEMAND that “gravity” always attracts every mass inwards, towards the center of the mass, BECAUSE, THAT is what gravity DOES].

NOTE: If we could somehow compare the same mass (or two different masses), side by side, the first one from earth’s location and an external location very close to the outer edge, we should easily be able to tell the difference.  Unfortunately, to move the mass to somewhere else, we would either have to input energy, or remove energy. {When humanity CAN do this, and then note the energy required, there will be no debate, THEN.}

What the C-R theory is trying to show and to demonstrate is: Gravity {acting thru  gravitational curvature} only ATTRACTS a mass to a GREATER curvature.  ONCE ANY mass is AT the GREATEST curvature, the attraction CEASES.  NOTE: PLEASE, please, please, do NOT just take my WORD for it, but test gravity for yourself.

Whenever you toss any mass [up] into a lesser curvature, that mass loves to visit, but simply cannot stay.  It always returns BACK TO a greater curvature, whenever WE CAN test it!!!  However, MASS, never, NEVER, NEVER, falls back into lesser curvature from a GREATER curvature in ANY experiment we CAN DESIGN, and TEST.  NOTE: If it did, I would not be reporting this to you home readers, now.

The above property, with gravity only attracting mass into a GREATER curvature, is EXCLUSIVELY noticed ONLY in a closed universe, where spacetime itself is non isotropic, or, not the same in all directions.

NOTE: All of the properties EXPECTED to be found in this model, are seen, within our universe.  What is amazing is: Those properties come naturally from our understanding of the closed universe, and there is no coercion necessary to get these properties to stand-out.

When viewed from the earth, anything running faster, or clocking faster, than us, appears blueshifted to us.  Just outside of the center of the universe, matter starts to run just a bit slower, but still faster than everywhere further outside our location.  As far as one can go, from the center, outward, time there runs (or clocks) slower.  These properties are NORMAL to a closed universe, and no anomalies are required.

SPECIAL NOTE: When trapping matter, the Black-Hole C-R will even trap 100% of the neutrinos trying to pass through.  I intend to expand upon this idea, later in this blog, to suggest something truly outrageous, if room and time permit. [HINT: They DID!!!]

More info on the Contest:

The property naming contest is open to anyone living on this planet, of any age, who can read the C-R theory, and propose their best candidate for a term.  One may also write from 100-500 words in support of the term (or in the derivation, if it is obtuse, but interesting or link-worthy), but the writing is not necessary to win.

[The best term will win, even if another term’s supporting essay is the clear winner, dialog-wise.]  HINT: Something like Cheshire-cat units [Ccu’s] might help convey the evanescence of the property, coming-and-going, or appearing and disappearing, as a suitable example of the proper quest to achieve both creativity and whimsy.  If no-one else proposes anything better, it could win by default, or by near-unanimous home reader acclaim and preference.

Due to my delays in posting this blog, the contest will be extended until at least April 30, 2013, and I will shortly thereafter post the finalists and runners-up, if any are received, in a new blog, as any blog posted for May or later, in 2013.  The home-readers will then have some amount of time to lobby, petition, or bribe the judges, advising what their favorite proposed term is.  NOTE: I have not simply created the winning term already, and am using the contest to drum-up interest, with no earthly chance of someone else winning.  In short, may the BEST term win.

Other than the singular “honor” of creating the first new term describing the basic properties of this universe, no financial gain or recompense is promised.  The author might be impressed enough by a creative-winner to partially empty his wallet and fund a modest token of appreciation. [If a winning “bribe” is accepted, up to 9/10 of the total amount could be awarded-out to runners-up, with the rest supporting the upkeep and modernization of the C-R theory web-site.]

That I know-of, no other scientific endeavor has ever proposed allowing one of the home readers the possible honor of crafting a new term to cover a truly basic property of this universe. {Science is not even looking for such a property, so they are quite unlikely to find anything of the kind, either.}  This opportunity may be YOUR last, and BEST chance, EVER, to name a basic property of this universe.  This unique opportunity may never be repeated again*. [*Unless this universe is BRIMMING with additional, undiscovered, {therefore}, yet unnamed, properties, waiting to be found, and the next scientific group so liked this contest’s result that they too might want to give the entire world an additional chance to name the next one to be found.]  Good luck to all of you contestants.  MAY the BEST term WIN!!!

Good luck to all entrants, if any.  For now, post your proposed candidates in the comments section at the bottom of the home page or the comments section, at the bottom of the blog.  Then take the short, game-like, Are You a Human test, normally taking under 10 seconds, to complete the task.  If I can create a suitable, stand-alone entry form, before the contest ends, that will be the preferred location for name suggestions.

As if on cue, I just noticed that this past month’s Scientific American, December, 2012 issue, had an article/essay by David Tong, titled: The Unquantum Quantum, starting on page 46, proposing that this universe is likely to be analog, and continuous, after all of it’s properties are found-out.  He goes on to note that, in Chemistry, the Schrodinger equation, yields whole, digital-like frequency emission steps, even though that equation is entirely continuous and analog, and not digital.  The equation still yields unique and singular, discreet output frequencies.  The essayist also noted that there are some simple properties that cannot be re-created digitally, but can only be approximated, at best, for matter constrained into a theoretical digital matrix, vs. matter actually existing in an ordered state, while attempting to simulate the real-world properties of matter in those minimum energy states.  The digital simulations just cannot capture (or anticipate) the real-world events.

Again, the fact that we cannot yet, fully understand this universe, using digital simulations, does not make the situation hopeless.  We still have adequate “wiggle-room” in trying to incorporate measures for that new property where differences in curving-spacetime do vary a mass’s energy with position.

In order to assist in describing this property more fully to others, it is time to give this condition a good, sound, scientific name.  However we eventually come to understand just how this property is implemented, the term will facilitate the discussion of this property.  NOTE: I have not given-up on finding a suitable name, all alone, by myself, but I have also opened-up the pool of possible selections to choose-from worldwide.

[FURTHER CLARIFICATION: If any extraterrestrials can find a way to enter, {in English}, I would not exclude them on that basis.  Whether they would understand the contest rules, in English, well enough to comply, could be an issue.]  I would honestly choose a better term, provided by someone else, over a finely-crafted term I had created, if I liked the sound, or the derivation of the property-name better, or if I thought it would hold-up better for the next 1,000 years.

In judging, I will select the term that I, and the other judge(s), decide is the BEST to represent the C-R theory ideas positively over the long term, and will resonate suitably with the greatest number of home readers.  [Ballot-box stuffing measures, such as spam voting repeatedly for a “favorite-son” term, by your spam-bot, will be eliminated and discounted.  On the other hand, I will take into consideration the suggestions from a greatest number of individual parties, who singularly vote-for, and rally persuasively, behind their favorite term name.

The author, may, at some time after the contest closes, provide a modest amount of funds in appreciation of the winning term, and runner(s)-up. {Entries provided by a collective group, or organizations, will not be eligible for the financial rewards, but could still be chosen as the best term.}

Whether To OPEN and/or SHUT your TRAP:

I mentioned earlier in this blog that I would expand upon the idea that the Black-Hole C-R would not permit neutrinos to pass through, but would also trap them inside, as well as heat and light.  While I cannot state that this next concept will ever become reality, it is possible [or thinkable], that far-future scientists and engineers will be able to exploit the conditions of the Black-Hole C-R enough to modulate a stream of neutrinos, and/or to store up neutrinos inside a Black-Hole C-R, for bulk release at a specific time.

What I was contemplating was, it may be possible to modulate, or manipulate a specially constructed Black-Hole C-R in such a way that scientists could manipulate the positioning and layout of large volumes of external matter, strategically placed, symmetrically, outside the “Official” Black-Hole C-R, so as to allow a hair-trigger shifting state, verging between achieving a critical mass, and pulling back some mass near the Schwarzschild radius, leaving the inside mass barely sub-critical.

I envision something akin to the construction of atomic bombs, which separate two (or more) sub-critical radioactive masses in such a way that they can be quickly brought together and go critical, then, KABOOM!!!  [But, with the addition of a recovery state built-in, to possibly allow the internal Black-Hole C-R to be pulled-back from the brink, switched on and off, on a repeatable and regular basis.

What I imagined is that it may be possible to surround a [nearly] sub-critical (but very dense central mass) with one or more external partial rings of dense mass, located  immediately outside the Schwarzschild radius, supporting “dangling masses” in such a way that their locations can both be brought-in, together, closer-in to the central mass, or pulled-away, re-located further from the central mass.

It may be possible to symmetrically place additional contributing masses around the barely sub-critical center in such a way as to cause it to achieve a critical mass-density, and become a Black-Hole C-R.  The real trick would be, could that process also be reversed, by externally pulling-back away many of the attached, outer masses out back again, away from the center, losing the critical density threshold, to repeatedly reverse the process? [Flash on and off at will, maybe within an hour or two’s time window, maybe days or weeks in worse case scenarios.]

The true test would be, would the way to connect the dispersed masses remain connected (enough) to again pull back the masses, to recover each of the individual, outer masses, or would the connection be forever severed, once each mass was located  inside the Black-Hole’s C-R Schwarzschild radius?

THE “SIGNATURE” Edition: [A Neutrino Prism?]

The “hallmark” signature of this ability would be the possible modulation of a stream of neutrinos, and/or the possible deflection of the neutrino beam at up-to-right angles, somewhat like: what a prism does to change or deflect a lightbeam’s direction.

NOTE: Under normal circumstances, neutrinos are very non-interactive.  I have read that a beam of neutrinos could traverse through a lightyear-thick (length wise) solid lead block, with only a 50% reduction in the beam strength.

This begs the question, do advanced civilizations already possess this technology, somewhere in this universe,  and, are they using it now?  Then, can we detect instances where this could be the case, and find instances of tightly modulated, or flashed, neutrino beams?

This concept of harnessing a “designed” Black-Hole’s C-R properties as a “tool” far exceeds the building of a Dyson sphere in difficulty, where an advanced civilization builds a sphere around a star, to totally harness, or harvest and utilize, the full energy output of the star.  The true question is, would this difficult feat be possible, even in 10,000 years, or more like a million years or a billion years into humanity’s future?

Would humanity discover some technical trick to allow this triggering action much sooner, say, in less than 1,000 years?  Would practical innovations from this harnessing result in something that would benefit everyone, or only one special interest group, with very large pockets, to pay for it, and very deep pockets to fill-up again, with the profits they gained from it’s use.?

After 2012 has drawn to a close, I would wish all our readers a happy and prosperous 2013 New Year.  I hope the C-R theory has proved beneficial for you, and given you something new to consider.  I want the home reader to have their horizons broadened.  My ultimate goal is to better understand our universe, and to help as many others as I can, to achieve the same (or better) level for themselves.

These ideas are either right or wrong, or somewhere in-between.  What really counts is do these ideas help YOU to understand our universe better?  If it does, then I have been successful.  If you only feel more confused, then I have failed, for the moment.  If I succeed in planting the seeds of wisdom, they may take a while to germinate, then to bear fruit. {Time will be needed to fully grasp these ideas, after first exposure.}

If you want to ask questions, or give your comments, use the comments sections at the bottom of the page.  If you find the C-R theory helpful, please recommend it to your friends.  If you hate it, please recommend it to your enemies.  Either way, we could use the publicity.

Jerry Reynard   Last modified/edited on January 27th, 2013

1,210 visits to this page.