C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

Changing Our Look

We recently updated our software for the main, web-site in August, 2012, and enhanced the display capabilities for the earlier blogs, and we added a page to collect all of our on-line videos, and feature them, too.  Please feel free to comment with your likes and/or dislikes about our new look.  We are working on other new features to take advantage of our greater capabilities.  (Your suggestions are welcome, too.)

We also had our 46,000 th visitor in July, and our 47,000 th visitor as I polished-up this posting.  I appreciate all who visit, and especially those who return for at least a second helping.  Even I would not fully grasp all of my own ideas if I had not seen them before, without multiple visits to this site.  These ideas are simply too new, and too revolutionary to be comprehended in one sitting (unless you just reject them).

Is the C-R Theory Relevant to Link All 3 Separate Mysteries from 3 Recent Articles?

Before I start to add in my comments on the announced discovery of the Higgs boson, there are at least 3 significant articles in new magazines that I specifically wanted to comment upon, and show why all 3 articles might each gain better relevance, an.  address much of their mysteries with special help coming exclusively from a C-R theory perspective, that would be totally missed by the standard thinking of mainstream science.

Since it covers my favorite topic now, the Black-Hole C-R , [but not from the C-R theory’s view], I would like to start with the cover article from the August, 2012, Scientific American magazine .  The article, starting on page 34, titled, The Benevolence of [generic] Black Holes, by Caleb Scharf, is an excerpt from his new book, titled Gravity’s Engines, (which happens to be advertised on page 89 of the same issue). {I have not yet obtained or read the full book, so I am commenting on just the article.}

One of the more interesting aspects from this article is that the author realizes that the central supermassive Black-Hole C-R at our galaxy’s center may play a big part in maintaining and preserving those conditions favorable to life, here on earth. [Although he imagines the generic black hole causing the changes, instead.]

The article notes that science conducts surveys and roughly finds two main color-groups of galaxies, red and blue.  The red galaxies, having a greater abundance of red stars, tend to be ellipticals, with slower burning stars that are longer lived.  The bluer galaxies tend to be spirals, with an abundance of more energetic, faster-burning, much younger stars.  The article suspects that the central supermassive [generic] black holes influence the conditions around and inside their galaxies.

The C-R theory would offer it’s insights into just how a Black-Hole C-R can change the nearby conditions, by freeing electrons from it’s dinner, whenever any Black-Hole C-R is feeding.  This could well affect how a Black-Hole C-R clears-out the local environment by allowing the freed electrons to drive-away or sweep-away matter from the local vicinity, when it is feeding.  By pushing back on hydrogen gas, with the free electrons ionizing incoming matter, the Black-Hole C-R shuts down the very process that drives it’s feeding

In short, the C-R theory might offer the home-reader a better way to understand both how and why the Black-Hole C-R , [but not the generic black hole], is capable of clearing out it’s vicinity, and effectively, turning-off it’s enormous output of stray electrical charges from locations swept-clean of near-by, loose hydrogen gas.

Without this fundamentally NEW understanding of just how a Black-Hole C-R operates, science has missed all of the benefits from that particular mode of operation. From a Newtonian sense, the generic black hole simply should not cycle on and off so smoothly, and perform in a kind-of “fully-on or all-off” duty cycle, instead of smoothing-out the incoming matter streams, and more gently modulating the incoming matter flow into the [generic] black hole’s open gullet.

(The Newtonian type black hole does not have any simple mechanism to clear out the local area, other than by consuming anything nearby, and attracting even more, if available.  There is nothing emitted, other than some heat and light, which could push away the local fodder, and slow down the black hole’s ravenous diet.  Anything further away is still affected, but, not driven off.  The rate of matter infall might be gently modulated by raising or lowering the radiated heat, but should not abruptly turn on and off sharply.)

The article does speculate that some type of black holes may modify the galaxy’s local conditions to make some locations more, and others less suitable for ongoing life. Compared to most other similar sized galaxies, our Milky Way galaxy seems to have conditions near earth “just right” for life to form and to thrive.  If we were located closer-in to the central locations, where massive supernovae often release tremendous quantities of dangerous gamma rays, earth and vicinity might be regularly sterilized, or have most lifeforms, [like us humans], obliterated at every flare-up.

Even though most articles refer to [generic] black holes as lurking monsters, few other articles have gone so far as to realize that the Black-Hole’s C-R properties may be much more intricately linked-to, [or even: required for], the success of maintaining our living conditions here. {Although this article does not carry out that realization as extensively as the C-R theory claims and understands.}

If this article had considered a possible benefit from a Black-Hole’s C-R ability to extensively change local conditions, the author might have achieved more insight into just why Black-Holes C-R are so beneficial, if not benign.  At the very least, the readers might have comprehended just HOW critical the Black-Hole’s C-R influences are to our life, here, and many conditions we experience, like thunderstorms, auroras, ozone protection, and other items. {Especially if one powers our sun.}

Another article, where the C-R theory may uniquely help-out with science’s understandings, is the article further along in the same issue, starting on page 54, titled Deadly Rays from the Clouds, by Joseph R. Dwyer and David M. Smith.

This article concerns the newly detected presence of gamma rays, freshly-created from antimatter annihilations generated during powerful lightning strokes released inside thunderstorm clouds.  Even though it was not designed to look-for earthly-generated cosmic rays, by a lucky “accident”, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory (CGRO) was detecting millisecond-long bursts of gamma rays, later found to be originating from thundercloud lightning strikes, possibly 9-13 km above earth, as well as from sprites originating from 40-60 km above earth’s surface.

Scientists are trying to understand the mechanism whereby large cascades of electrons (HINT HINT HINT) are unleashed within thunderclouds.  This accelerates some particles within those clouds to almost lightspeed, and releases enormous sums of energy.  With sufficient energy released, [more than enough to create some matter-antimatter pairs], those pairs then annihilate to produce gamma rays.  If only SOMEONE had a theory that could help to explain where these abundant, energetic electrons (maybe, excess electrons?) came from.

This situation seems tailor-made for the C-R theory to provide insights not available by standard reasoning paths, but simple to understand, when using the C-R theory.

One of the most interesting lines from this article is at the start of the text-block on the middle of the page 58, stating that scientists originally underestimated the levels of energy available for a supercharged version of the electron avalanche inside a cloud by a factor of well-over a trillion .  That gives some hope for the C-R theory, that, maybe if scientists were that wrong initially, they might eventually reconsider their objections to the mechanism used by the C-R theory to explain the abundance of electrons (which only the C-R theory expects).

The article also related that, eventually, another satellite designed to observe x-rays and gamma rays from the sun, the Reuven Ramaty High Energy Solar Spectroscopic Imager (RRHESSI), also detected the 0.3 millisecond bursts through it’s backside, and was able to determine the levels in the atmosphere that those bursts originated. Between 9 and 13 miles high was the eventual determination.

In 2011, the article states that some terrestrial-origin gamma rays, forming inside thunderstorms, were found to have energies at least up to 100 million eV, which is at least as energetic as some of the most intense solar-flare-based emissions, which shocked* those making that discovery. (* a literary pun here, not literally shocked, as in: electrically.  They are hoping for further observations to clarify just why this is the case.

I would claim that only the C-R theory has been advocating noticing possible excessive amounts of electrons for at least 30 years.  In many locations within our solar system, but especially obvious around thunderstorms and clouds, we seem to find excessive electrons.  If our sun IS powered by a small Black-Hole C-R at it’s center, releasing large quantities of excess electrons there, their exit might help to explain the source of those magnetic fields, so characteristic of sunspots, seen emerging from below our sun’s surface.

I have read elsewhere that, long ago, von Helmholz had estimated that our earth had an overabundance of electrons, ranging in quantities between 1,800 and 2,000 Coulombs, with a continual replacement current of 200 amps, (Coulombs per second), so that the idea of earth’s excess (spare) electrons did not just originate with me.

NOTE: Those numbers are NOT that unreasonable, if one notices that earth’s magnetic field can sweep-up currents of electrons from volumes of space surrounding earth.  Of course, if NO electrons are there, rounding up any large quantity of stray electrons should be impossible, thus baffling mainstream science with their own null expectations.

MAJOR HINT: To guesstimate the available quantity of extra negative charges, take the supposed quantity of hydrogen atoms in our sun, claimed to be undergoing fusion into helium every second, then divide that quantity by the increase in energy-release efficiency per electron-proton starting pair.  Since fusion liberates 0.7% of hydrogen’s rest-mass energy, whereas dropping into a Black-Hole C-R can release 50% of the same hydrogen atom’s rest-mass energy, simply divide 50% by 0.7%, (or multiply the top and bottom by the fraction 10 over 10 [which equals one], for 500 divided by 7). That gives an improvement in efficiency of up to 71.4 times , but if you rounded it down to, or just used 70 times the efficiency, I won’t complain too much.

{As an aside, if we were to consider our sun’s potential radiating lifetime, when powered by a Black-Hole C-R vs. fusion, we could probably at least double it, past the 71.4 times the 10 billion year lifetime multiplication figure.  Since our sun’s gravitationally powered Black-Hole’s C-R appetite would not be bothered by the build-up of helium atoms that would start to poison, and shut-down the fusion-powered process after 10 billion years or so of continuous operation, [and which science supposes to be roughly half over, by their best current estimates], our sun would last considerably longer than standard [fusion] theories would suspect.}

Take that total number from [before the aside] above, and divide it by 10 billion, for earth’s share of our sun’s total output of solar radiation.  If earth’s magnetic field can sweep up electrons from the surface-area exposed out-to 10-30 or more earth-diameters, square those numbers [do not cube them for volume], and see if that number is reasonable, planet-wide, for a ball-park estimate.  HINT: If you divide by 6.02 x 10 23 , that would give the answer in Coulombs per second, or Amperes.

Some additional, new insight

Before I go on to the next article, it recently occurred to me that thunderstorms do not just happen, here on earth, but on other planets, too.  What is most interesting is, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune all have intense thunderstorms, lightning, and high winds.  The intensity of the storms on both Jupiter and Saturn might be more related to their planet’s large magnetic field sizes, with their charge-sweeping-up ability, more so than their from the thermal-energy levels received from the sun’s heat.

NOTE: A recent storm on Saturn was so intense that it lasted for over 9 months, and, by January 2011, totally encircled the planet at a mid-latitude, that was 6,2000 miles wide.  NASA even detected daytime lightning flashes of at least 3 billion watts per flash, according to another source.

In the third significant magazine article, I will refer to the Science News article from the July 14 th , 2012 issue, about A Century of Cosmic Rays, by Nadia Drake.  Almost 100 years ago, the Austrian scientist Victor Hess lifted-off in a hydrogen filled balloon. His electroscopes found that, at 4500 meters high, they recorded three times as many cosmic rays as they did on the ground.  This demonstrated that the cosmic rays originated somewhere above earth, and led to his later receiving a Nobel prize.

In the subsequent 100 years, scientists have measured more cosmic rays more accurately, but they have not made great progress in understanding HOW they originate or where the energy to accelerate them comes from.  Some cosmic rays obtain energies thousands of times higher than the amount that our LHC can provide.

The article goes on to state that scientists think they have narrowed some cosmic ray candidates to supernovas, but the magnetic fields found in space curve their paths, and obscure their true origins.  In 1962, detectors at the Volcano Ranch in New Mexico measured a cosmic ray with 100 billion billion eV, and in 1991, at the University of Utah’s Fly’s Eye detector, they measured a particle at over 300 billion billion eV [or 300 quintillion eV].  The article suggests that such a high energy cosmic ray might be from a heavier nucleus such as iron, rather than a single proton.

Where the C-R theory can help here is that it provides one of the simplest, most-natural, and easiest to understand [but maybe, not to accept or believe] mechanisms for explaining how Black-Holes C-R produce cosmic rays.

This is a shortened explanation, for this blog.  Since the Black-Hole C-R consumes mass, by mass, and rejects the electrons, it stores up ionized protons, and proton-neutron combinations.  These are stored in such a way that, because of the escape velocity over lightspeed, all electromagnetic interactions are suspended, and temporarily inactivated, or neutralized.

Since the matter is stored in such a condition, there can be absolutely no external knowledge of the build-up of positive charges.  Those charges still possess all of their positiveness, but they are forbidden from expressing it.  Those charges are also immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius, and NOT at a central singularity, so they are very sensitive to slight positional shifts.

Eventually, some close encounters with either other Black-Holes C-R , or co-orbiting stars may be enough to slightly shift some of the stored charges back into full, real-time space, featuring the true explosiveness that supernovae are famous for.  Coronal mass ejections, novae, supernovae, hypernovae, quasars, Seyfert galaxies, Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN’s), and gamma ray bursts are all representative of yet larger quantities of charged particles released, over increasing scales of magnitude.

The long-continuing nature of the supernova’s expansion should be found in the spectra of some recorded blasts, still featuring high levels of multiple-positive-ionizations found 3,000 years after the initial supernova faded away, in one example covered a few years back in an earlier blog.

I will leave the more specific arguments in favor of this scenario to be found in the C-R theories, but please note that mainstream science has pre-dismissed such a scenario from any consideration, so that they INTENTIONALLY will not listen to the arguments.  This is one of the main reasons that I now intend to use this blog, and those 2 theories to present these simple, yet powerful new ideas to as many home-readers as is possible.

I also intend to appeal for the simplicity and elegance of nature’s plans (or my lies or fantasies, if they are fictional).  Only if nature indeed uses something like this method, should we detect outrageous levels of stray charges, magnetic fields, polarized light, aurorae, thunderstorms, and excess electrons, showing up in hundreds, if not thousands of accounts of natural phenomena.

If such phenomena are not there, even my best lies to the contrary cannot produce them.  If, however, the home-reader agrees with me that there are simply too many similar reports with too many commonalities to just what [only] the C-R theory suspects, we now have a causative mechanism which supplies “the missing links” that could make the key differences in understanding for all 3 of the articles mentioned above.

While mainstream science may attribute my offerings from the C-R theory ideas to my megalomania, I would counter that I have simply recognized some connections years ahead of my time, and I welcome everyone to consider my explanations, or other reasonable alternatives to explain all of the same items I am pointing-out.  If you can provide me with a simpler, more logical answer, that connects as many known phenomena, I would like to believe I would accept it, if I agreed it was a better hypothesis.  I would hope that the honest seeker would reciprocate, when they are convinced.

If I have carefully noticed these public-knowledge items, and claimed them for the C-R theory’s support, it is through the “good nature” of nature, that almost handed them to me on a silver platter, because science refused to connect any links to any of them.  I regret that I had to accept them all, but it seemed correct at the time.  Continually revising the scope of my understandings, and by accepting what is actually discovered, I am flabbergasted that nature seems to be almost endorsing the C-R theory’s ideas.

I never claim to have invented or originated these ideas, {I leave that to a/the Creator}, but merely to have been the first to uncover and understand how they all fit in [to a plan].  Am I to blame if nature hands me outrageous proof that the C-R theory might be right, in spite of all the textbooks to the contrary?

If nature had not been so kind to the C-R theory these last 30-some years, I would have been much more reluctant to post these ideas with near-certainty.  If I am simply seeing what I want to see, then posting these results for critics and non-biased observers to confirm or deny might bring me back down to reality.

If I am completely wrong, then why do these crazy expectations give real answers that still seem to fit-in with reality so well.  I do not think I am that good of a guesser. There is a bit more to this story, which must be saved for later times.  It might help to answer just why I might have succeeded where others have not.

There, in the 3 articles mentioned above, are 3 good examples of: How the C-R theory might help to answer some of today’s most pressing mysteries, using some new understandings.  Whether you agree, disagree, or want to hold-off judgement for more evidence, I trust this blog will pique your curiosity, and perhaps encourage you to question if you too, can also contribute simple, new ideas where the older ideas still need to be replaced or updated.

So much of science nowdays gives the impression that ALL of the simple ideas are solved, and only the multi-disciplinary collaborations and expensive supercomputer simulations are needed to make any further progress.  While that may be the case, most of the time, if there are any more simple one’s up for grabs, if YOU are not looking for them, and not looking AT them freshly, the likelihood is: you will not find them.

I hope that there are still avenues where true amateurs, and home-hobbyists like myself, can contribute meaningfully to our world’s understandings.  Are there simple, yet profound ideas that are only one insight {yours?} away from discovery?

NOW, On To More Comments On The Higgs Boson Particle Discovery

As I was finishing my last blog, I made some comments on the announcement of the discovery of the Higgs boson.  I predicted that, despite this discovery, there would be few if any practical results, leading to profound, new insights.

One of the reasons that I feel that confident is: I spent the last 30 years re-understanding how gravity works.  From the C-R theory perspective, the incremental differences in mass, varying by location, are part of what drives the C-R theory’s new insights, and they help to explain, in a whole new way, how gravity is expressed.  My belief is that this finding (or speculation, if you are skeptical) will prove to be much more significant in the everyday, day-to-day understanding of our real world encounters with gravity.

It is still possible that the Higgs boson will explain what causes the mass’s of each different sub-atomic particle to vary widely, but the routine varying, or incrementally small changes of ALL of those different particles when in varying gravitational fields, claimed by the C-R theory only, are the real key to a new understanding.

If our universe is closed-off, and relatively static, and the red-shifts seen are due to real-time differences, changing by location, and not caused by Doppler shifts, varying from the different velocities of accelerating expansion, this changes one’s outlook completely.

The strongest hint that the C-R theory view is more-correct is that we see both redshifts, and limited blueshifts, simultaneously .  If we saw only redshifts, or only blueshifts in this one universe, then the C-R theory’s case would be more vexing.

I still claim that a closed-universe, with a preferred-reference-frame imposed upon it’s contents, would more-closely fit exactly what we do see in our real world.

When scientists, just last year, lifted one of two atomic clocks, which had been synchronized, by 1/3 of a meter, or about 1 foot, the lifted clock ran faster by an incredibly small amount, but one that was now measurable.  If this time-varying property also holds true for everywhere else in our universe, then time-rates should vary predictably, by knowing properties about each location.

The problem exists, when, by definition, earth’s scientists maintain that this is distinctly NOT the case, and proceed to correct the observed redshifts to match our earth’s time-rate.  When that is done, objects farther away (which should be running slower than us, time-wise) appear to be dimmer, (as they really ARE, because they are running slower), than they would be if they were clocking at earth’s time-rates.  This apparent “time-discrepancy” is interpreted as proof that our universe’s expansion-rate is speeding up, when further distances are looked-at, and the pattern is set.

That “problem” goes away if one uses the C-R theory’s logic to understand what we do see.  We see that further-away objects are also dimmer, because they ARE running slower, there, than the rate at which we clock, here on earth.  Then, the entire expansion problem disappears.

Towards “The Great Attractor”, we see blueshifts, again because objects there really are clocking faster (because they ARE NOT as slowed-down, there, as we are, due to our somewhat-higher levels of curvature, here).  Conventional theory needs another brand-new anomaly to account for the blueshifts, hence, the invention of “The Great Attractor”.

Just last year, scientists noticed that, when a second atomic clock was lifted-up by a small amount, variously reported as 1/3 of a meter (or 33 cm), or 12″, the lifted-up atomic clock ran just a small amount faster, an amount that an atomic clock can easily track.  What the C-R theory contends is that this small time difference also equates to either a small energy difference or a small “speed-of-light” difference, and that this short distance [that one, specific 33 cm’s location] is not the only place where these incremental-time differences add-up. {Depending upon what you keep constant, the other property changes.  I could live with either one changing.}

The C-R theory contends that it is exactly this (time or energy) difference that either supplies the energy freed-up (liberated) when an item drops or falls, into a slower time-rate, or it is this difference that can be measured after an object is lifted-up, thereby increasing it’s exact energy-worth by the same amount of energy used to lift-up the object. [as an incremental change that we can now measure and track]

This energy difference is, therefore, kept-track-of by the object itself, as it either gains or loses energy (and/or real-time).  This happens everytime an object is moved (except sideways, where the energy level stays the same).  The real test is: once the object is moved-into the slowest-local timeframe (or the place of MAXIMUM local curvature), will the object remain there, until or unless some external source of energy can be added or obtained?

If this is so, that the object only “falls” into the location of MAXIMUM curvature, and this is where the lowest-possible energy position lies, gravitationally.  The object cannot continue to fall, [to gain-back the same energy again that it already lost], by accelerating back into lesser curvature (where real-time energy would have to clock-faster) without more energy coming from somewhere.  By knowing about the real-time differences, and WHERE they occur, our expectations from gravity MUST change.  The energy-accountability improves as well.

This is a big change from a Newtonian system, and a complete surprise to anyone expecting Newtonian behavior.  Only a change in understanding of WHY a ball falls, or why inputting more energy would be necessary to “drop” a ball down from the CMB, which is already the minimum-energy location on earth, and take it to the center of the earth (or, more correctly, to drag or force it down to there*, as, it could not just “go there” on it’s own accord). [*It would take even more energy to lower that mass, down, as it would to raise that mass above earth’s surface, because it would be starting-down from a stronger level of gravity, leaving it with less real-time energy than it possessed on earth’s surface.]

Another question is, could the Higgs boson’s contribution to an object’s mass also account for the incremental changes in mass, with location, expected by the C-R theory, or would another mechanism be needed.  In my original ideas, I imagined it would be one or more of the “hidden” dimensions, those so small we simply cannot see them, but they show up in places like Planck’s constant or the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, that would account for the changes.  If one imagined this dimension “minimized” (like a simple straight line) at the Great Attractor, but modulated with small circles, or loops, gradually added-in as the curvature increased, this could add a distance or path-length increase to the equivalent energy’s speed-of-light path, to effectively slow it down, time-wise, and reduce it’s effective energy-worth.

This could explain the increasing redshifts we see as one nears the outer edges of the universe (or simply, gets further away from us).  When we reached the outer edges of this universe, the loops would be so big, and so bent that light could simply not travel anywhere, but light would remain stuck in one place, continually looping-around a stationary point A, instead of travelling from point A to point B.  HINT: That is why we live inside a closed-universe.  One simply cannot go further out, without being bent back inside. [Think of a two dimensional, ink drawing on the surface of a solid object.  It also cannot leave it’s surface.]

NOTE: Because of their small size, [orders of magnitude smaller than a proton], we could never see or measure these loops directly, even here, on earth. (and especially without also going there, to the edges of the universe, billions of light-years away) However, we do see the redshifts they cause, as a time-slowdown.  HINT: These loops might explain why we constantly observe certain repeating, values, such as Planck’s constant, or electrical charge, or angular spin.

Of course, since mainstream science maintains that nothing like this happens, and that everywhere else in this universe has properties just like here, on earth, as the theory of relativity says, then by their definition, they could not and would not expect anything like this to be occurring.  

Cosmologists attribute the redshifts to our universe’s expansion, but they cannot pay-for that expansion with any known, available, energy source.  Therefore, they invoke “dark energy” to fund the expansion, which always simply shows-up and anonymously pays the energy-bill, without ever “politely” being asked to do so.

If the C-R theory is right, our universe, and what we see in it takes on an entirely new level of simplicity.  If standard theory prevails (as it now does, in the opinion polls, since everyone thinks it is true), then our universe needs an enormously costly and complicated energy accountability scheme, which seemingly comes from nowhere, for free.

All I can do is present the C-R theory’s alternative, and ask, is this simple account not much more reasonable?

This also greatly simplifies one’s understanding of gravity.  Each object “carries all of it’s energy with it”.  Any gains or losses, happen on the spot, and are never held hostage by “tough conditions elsewhere”, (as in, inside a singularity, if one could exist).

One of the easiest places to see the benefits of that simplification is anywhere a photon enters and exits a large and varying gravitational field, repeatedly, on it’s journey through space.  Just ask yourself, how can EVERY miserable photon in this universe continually lose energy, and then re-gain that same amount of energy, repeatedly, as it travels-about AT LIGHTSPEED, and at varying angles to the gravitational gradient?

In the C-R theory alternative view, it is always THE EXTERNAL objects that change their energy (as THEY are then compared to the same, unchanging photon).  The photon might be slightly bent, or changed in direction, but it never loses or gains energy as gravity varies.

If we accepted current science’s thinking, each and every photon (or, enough of them to make a detectable energy-difference) adjust their energy level, continually, as the photon travels tither and yon.  Since there are supposed to be at least 1 billion photons for every proton or neutron, and all of them are continually travelling at light-speed, this universe would have to be crazy to keep track of each photon, and adjust each one instantaneously, according to it’s surroundings.

Additionally, where did the energy go, when the photon lost energy, climbing-out of a lesser energy, higher gravity location, and where did that energy come from again, as the photon gains energy while entering a slower timeframe.  If you are not troubled by these questions (unless it is because you believe-in the C-R theory), this universe should be crazy to try to adjust each photon’s energy, just for accuracy’s sake. Compare that scenario to, the photon does not change it’s energy level, until or unless it is intercepted, or absorbed or re-emitted.  To do NOTHING seems like the wisest course of all, given the exorbitant number of photons scurrying-about.

Of course, the only possible way that doing nothing can work, for all photons, is that it is on each mass’s end that gravity changes energy values.  That way, when you climb up a hill, and note that the photon, up there is measuring less energetic to you, it is because you added to your own energy-worth as you climbed-up the hill, and YOU are now more fast-clocking.  It was not the zero massed photon that varied.  No “work” was done to carry it’s mass uphill, and no work value is received when it sleds downhill.

I would like to prepare a list of items one can look-at to notice some of the many symptoms that the C-R theory wants home-readers to notice, including large amounts of stray (or excess) electrons, high energy positive charges, or cosmic rays, large, energetic magnetic fields, evidence of polarization, evidence of excess positive charges causing the rapid expansion of those glowing fireballs and energizing those shock waves that look so nice in the Hubble telescope photos, and similar items.

It is not so much any one of those, alone, but ALL of them, seen simultaneously, together, that gives an indication of the amount of electrical activity occurring everywhere in space.  When ALL of them are investigated, there should be indications of a consistent pattern, and a systemic operation, where these charges are continually giving-away, (or announcing), their presence.  Even sources that do not support the C-R theory at all should be honest enough to let it be known that something electrical is going-on, that is not covered in conventional astronomer’s playbooks.

As always, I thank you for visiting, and I hope you found these ideas stimulating and constructive.  Please visit again, if you need more insights.  There is simply too much material here for anyone to absorb, learn, and believe in one encounter.

With any luck, I have not yet run out of new topics, new reports, new articles, or new web-items which might support the C-R theory’s position.  If you cannot accept it, for now, that confirms the effectiveness of your current education.

I welcome any home-readers to accept any portions of these ideas that can help you understand this universe in a new way.  Feel free to mull-over these ideas, and please test them in every possible way.  If these ideas are wrong, I would like to know where and why, and I will attempt to fix them or correct them.

If you notice significant, new links to phenomena which would support or disprove any of these ideas, I welcome that, too.

Jerry A. Reynard.   Last revised August 13, 2012