Another Theory Arrives at Same Conclusions by Different Means
There are a few new items to comment upon. From a few different sources, but within the same week, I did find out about another person, Nassim Haramein, with a theory that comes to some of the same conclusions as the C-R theory in several cases. He used different methods. Many of his other ideas are probably less mainstream, and he is still coming from a more conventional starting point. Here is a link to some of his videos. There are many differences, too. I do like that he tries to use fractal-like similarity into the scales of the universe, although I would differ that this is successful. Most of the vastly smaller reference-frames like atoms and quarks are not as “identical” in the smaller sizes as they are similar. I have not gone all through his videos, and some of them are very long.
He does believe that atoms behave like (conventional) miniature black holes. This is one clear difference area. The C-R theory does not allow the knowledge of the inner electrical charge to leak-out or couple-out from inside the Black-HoleC-R. Additionally, I doubt that the atom’s nucleus would have enough room inside to host a fully functional Active Zone C-R, required to establish the Black-HoleC-R in the first place, much less even to tolerate or accommodate a functional Neutral Zone C-R.
Nonetheless, I would invite the curious to consider his ideas, and see if anything “resonates” with you. I would not be surprised if there was not at least some truth and some good information that could be incorporated. If I could “sell him” on at least 5 of the key concepts from the C-R theory, and then build upon those ideas too, I would not be surprised if something greater could be the result.
Important areas from the C-R theory that were missed: The preferred reference frame superimposed over this “closed-universe”. Why gravity (or technically, curvature) is manifested outside a Black-HoleC-R, where as electrical charge and spin are not coupled-out. C-R also claims that our universe is infinitely old, but does allow matter and energy to recycle. We did not start off in a Big Bang!! Most of the red shift and blue shift that we see is gravitationally-caused, and not Doppler shifted. Also, the C-R theory maintains that our universe is fixed in size, perfectly stable, and is not expanding, much less, expanding at an accelerated rate.
On the positive side, he is one of the few independent other people to also claim that we live inside a large conventional black hole, whereas the C-R theory claims it is a “A C-R theory-type, brand-name” Black-HoleC-R that we live inside. I won’t cover all of those differences here, but they are addressed elsewhere in earlier blogs, and in the main C-R theory.
A clear difference is that Nassim Haramein also believes that virtually everything has a singularity within, not just the conventional black holes themselves, but atoms, quarks, cells of organisms, bacteria, planets, animals, plants, stars, people, galaxies, and the universe.
I do like that he attempts to explain the interactions over all ranges in terms of gravity vs electricity, including the manifestations of both the strong and weak forces.
I do also like that he tries to think more fully, “3 dimensionally, plus time”. Most textbooks in math and physics treat the world as simplified, and flat, and 2 dimensional, whereas the real world is much more dynamic, and does use vorticies, rotations, torques, and coriolis forces. Standard, equation-based thinking, throws out many of the real complexities in an attempt to simplify the equations, and loses some of the real dynamics in the process.
Conventional science is sure to cringe at his attempts to link-in patterns included inside some crop circles as communications from elsewhere. He does attempt to claim that there is both an input and output perpetually going on at all levels, at all scales, providing some type of feedback, or response.
I do believe he has missed the many benefits that only the C-R theory considers, but almost 100% of mainstream science has missed these same items too. I will give him credit that I believe he has noticed some of the same things that the C-R theory has noticed, but he has used a very different approach overall. I did notice that at least one of his videos was not copyrighted, and he does want to share those ideas freely with anyone interested.
I will state that I do sense a kindred spirit, with similar motivations to freely share his ideas, and explain a much bigger picture than normal science, which often seeks to limit new considerations to a very narrow specialization.
Mr. Haramein does accept the expanding and accelerated-expanding universe, which imposes limits and constraints not faced by the C-R theory.
Considering Nassim Haramein’s theory may even make the C-R theory seem somewhat more reasonable by comparison. It does offer the interested reader yet another alternative to consider. There is quite a lot of material available on line, for free. I do believe that the C-R theory could hold it’s own in a head to head comparison. There are certainly areas he covers where the C-R theory has no immediate intention to try to explain. Since there are some similarities to the C-R theory, and some big differences too, I decided to comment, offer my ideas, and give any interested blog readers the opportunity to make up their own minds.
As with the C-R theory, these new ideas are either right, or they are wrong. Time may well tell whether the ideas can stand the test of time. I do not believe any reader is misserved if they can find another new way that they believe the universe does or does not work. The ideas are unique enough, and not available elsewhere, and they might be worthy of a look.
In looking at statistics for the C-R theory site, there are more international readers than I initially expected. Within the last half-year, the C-R theory has had more visitors from China and the former USSR than from English speaking countries like Britian, other UK countries, Canada, and Australia. They’re certainly welcome, but it does surprise me, that they weren’t my intended target audience. I may have to tailor my materials a bit more to cater-to wherever the incoming readers are coming-from. I honestly do not expect them to understand the subtleties of the intentional word misuses, the puns, and the jokes within the Comedy-Recycling theory. I will concentrate more on revising the Completely Recycling theory, where I have tried to limit the jokes puns and humor, but still explain the same core ideas.
I do try to welcome everyone to the web site, and I would like for everyone to at least consider the C-R theory ideas for the first time. I expect most to reject the ideas as too radical, and too different. My hope is that I make enough inroads, sow enough “seeds” of what to look-for, where to look, types of phenomenon to notice, how to recognize patterns that the C-R theory claims should be there.
I know of no other theory so bold as to “put it’s neck on the chopping block” so to speak, predicting excess electrons being released from EVERY feeding Black-HoleC-R. If this does not go on, it should eventually be noticed, and the C-R theory could be safely discarded. If it is noticed, it should be nearly impossible for conventional theory to “wiggle-out” of those findings, and explain it away. I count on the fact that SOME of the many incoming readers of the C-R theory WILL recognize the situation, and remember that ONLY the C-R theory predicted such an outcome.
One of the nicer things about using the C-R theory predictions is that one need not go too far to find a suitable location. There is a HUGE anomaly, an astonishing excess of electrons, barely 93 million miles, or 150 million Km from earth, as near as our local sun. One of the few theories that believes our sun is powered by an internal, small Black-HoleC-R, is the C-R theory. The conclusion is fairly easy, as there is an enormous excess of electrons on our sun. This is evident in our sun’s spectrum, easily detectable, when one recognizes that virtually every hydrogen atom in our sun’s photosphere, in spite of being heated to over 6,000° C, or almost 10,000° F, that every hydrogen atom EACH GAINS an extra electron!!!!!!!!!!!! It is difficult not to overemphasize just how anomalous this phenomenon is, to conventional theory.
To the best of my knowledge, ONLY the C-R theory CELEBRATES this fact, and rejoices in that finding. While not proving that our sun is powered by a Black-HoleC-R, it is an incredibly supportive argument in favor of that conclusion.
NOTE: If our sun is powered by the energy of hydrogen falling into a smaller Black-Hole C-R at the sun’s center, this process is at least 20 times, and possibly up to 50 times as efficient at extracting energy from the same amount of hydrogen consumed. This implies a considerably longer lifetime available to our sun, as compared to the 50% over (half-used-up) expectation from conventional theory, if our sun is around 5 billion years old.
Even more ironic than that, I have recently realized that if indeed our sun is consuming the heavier elements, closer-in to our sun’s core, rather than being “poisoned” by an ever enriched dietary percentage of helium as it grows older, our sun might actually be growing PURER in it’s hydrogen content with age, as the “heavier and enriched” elements will be dined-upon first, preferentially. Unfortunately, it might take millions of years of prolonged observations of our sun’s levels of minor elements to detect whether the trend in levels of measured impurities is upwards or downwards.
I do find it ironic that the very thing that would worry conventional theory, having our fusion levels choked-off over time by helium poisoning, and thus, causing our sun to expand, grow larger, and “burn” helium into heavier elements, may be the least-worrysome longterm danger we face.
In a very similar situation, covering the release of the stored-up (in an inactivated-mode) positive charges released from the nova, supernova, quasar, Seyfert galaxy, and gamma ray bursts. I know that there are sites on the web showing the levels of multiple-positive ionizations (+5 valences and above) found in supernovae remnants thousands of years old. There are enough instances of polarized light (and electromagnetic radiation across the full spectrum) to start to recognize the enormous levels of electrical and magnetic fields in galaxies, nebulae, and gas clouds everywhere.
When it comes to providing the simplest possible “reasonable” explanation of the appearance of our universe, I can think of no better candidate that the C-R theory. Rather than needing a bevy of at least 5 or 6 improbable, illogical, anomalies, needing continual “gifts” of “magic-energy”, coming from absolutely nowhere, yet with ever-increasing demands, science has not questioned, could our choices made back around 1929 have been wrong, all along?
Let me give you a simple description of the C-R theory view of our universe, as it is seen.
Our universe is a closed-universe. It has exactly enough mass at the right density to perfectly maintain [or contain, gravitationally] everything we see.
The structure of this perfectly closed universe is 100% stable, and energy-referenced by location. The most highly curved mass is at the outer edges. Mass here is the most bent- curved, warped, and slowed-down. It is not permitted to “fall” inward unless it can gain energy it does not have. (However, it can trade energy, receive energy, receive unbalanced electrical charges, and freely interact.) As one proceeds inward, towards the center, matter there is less slowed-down, or less redshifted to us. Here on earth, we are closer-in to the center, and, hence, more energetic, than most of the matter in this universe.
To any matter in this universe which appears redshifted to us, we would appear similarly blueshifted to it. Closer in towards the center of this universe, matter there is blueshifted to us. The most blueshifted place in this universe is the center. It is the least-warped, the least-curved, the least-bent volume in this universe. Since matter there is worth more energy, we could not “fall” towards there. We would need to acquire additional energy in order to travel there.
NOTE: Since our universe is completely closed-off, it can never lose or radiate-away any of it’s internal energy.
NOTE: With the aid of countless Black-HolesC-R located inside our universe, matter and energy do recycle with 100% efficiency.
NOTE: Our universe NEVER violates conservation of energy, never runs downhill, and remains continually dynamic over extended time.
NOTE; The 2.7K background radiation we measure is NOT the remnant of the Big Bang. It is instead the averaged-out indication of ongoing recycling, coming equally from every direction.
The 2.7K is more akin to the roar of a nearby waterfall. It is continually replenished, and will never cool-down over time. That value will vary as one changes position from within our universe. The 2.7K value is only valid as seen from earth, or anywhere-else on a spherical-shell, equidistant from the Great Attractor.
NOTE: The net sum of all the products from every nova, supernova, quasar, Seyfert galaxy, active galaxy, and gamma ray burst, averaged-out over time, is the 2.7K we see from earth.
If one takes Occams’ Razor into account, the principle that the simplest explanation is the most likely to be correct, I will publicly challenge ANY theory to give a simpler, and more logical explanation than the brief summary above.
NOTE: The C-R theory needs no beginning anomalies. All that the C-R theory needs is that this universe HAS ALWAYS EXISTED, it does now exist, and it always will exist. It always looks very similar to what it looks like right now. EVERY process we see going on in this universe TODAY (even if it actually occurred long-ago, in the past) is still going on, somewhere else, at this very moment.
HINT: That does not mean it is going-on at the same real-time rate as we experience here on earth!!!
Last modified 2, 2, 2010