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 75,000 th , 76,00 th , 77,000 th , 78,000 th 79,000 th , 80,000 th , 81,000 th , 82,000 th , 83,000 th , and the 84,000 th 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 10 40th 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 10 96 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