C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

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 101,000 th visitor.

I was recently looking at the files I wrote at the time of our 25,000 th 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 29 th , 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 over charged ?

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 -35 th 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 10 100th 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 100,000 th 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