Double Negative Ionization of Our Sun's Photosphere
In my last blog, I stated that I would like to review some of the evidence that is supported by the C-R theory. (Not the other way around)
One of the most compelling areas, where the C-R theory has a clear advantage over any conventional theory, is in the double negative ionization of our sun’s photosphere. It is kind-of a fancy way of saying that, when our sun heats-up hydrogen to 6000° C, or almost 10,000° F, instead of shedding all it’s electrons, as most (reasonable) heated gasses do here on earth, every hydrogen atom there PICKS-UP an additional electron, as well as holding-on to the one electron it normally carries around at earth’s room temperature
Of course, this doesn’t make any sense at all, unless there is a READY SOURCE of extra electrons, which standard theories don’t want, don’t predict, don’t expect, don’t require, and can’t understand. Only the C-R theory wanted there to be excess electrons there in the vicinity of the sun, if our sun was really powered by a small Black-HoleC-R , and not primarily by thermonuclear fusion. The C-R theory could have lived with no extra electrons found, and would have concluded that no Black-HoleC-R was present there.
It was some 25 years after the original C-R theory came into being that this author found out that science already KNEW about these excess electrons, but did it’s level best to cover-over the fact, sweep it under the proverbial rug, or ignore it and hope it went away. I know of no other theory which would CELEBRATE the discovery of excess electrons.
I found at least one web-site for the Electric Universe idea, that references at least 4 known stars that have changed their characteristics on the H-R (Hertzsprung-Russell) diagram notably over relatively short periods (a human lifetime), not in the millions of years those stars should take if the thermonuclear-fusion route was followed to the letter of the law.
At least one star has changed virtually through every phase of the diagram, including color-class changes and orders of magnitude changes, since the end of the 1800’s until the present day. This should not be possible, at all, if the standard energy-generating process takes place inside stars. Yet it does.
By standard theory, this universe should be mostly electrically neutral, and pretty uninteresting. However, in every direction we look, we see evidence of polarized light, indicating massive electrical fields, or huge magnetic fields. Standard theory does not support that evidence, and does not agree with it. The C-R theory says, “YES” I can easily live with that.
The C-R theory may be the ONLY theory on the internet that has a simple, easy to understand idea of what “the Great Attractor” is. If there is a preferred reference frame superimposed over this universe (by the matter confined inside), then it is easy to understand that we are not at the center, and we run slower than objects there. Conventional theory needs yet another weird anomaly to explain what it is, and there is no overall understanding of what the Great Attractor represents in the scheme of things.
While the Big Bang thinks it has an idea of what it sees in this universe, we are still left with an unsatisfying 5 major anomalies needed in context to make sense of the Big Bang. Even with all that, there is no source of the initial start, no source for the continuing expansion, much less the expanding expansion. There is no real cause for hyperinflation, just a need for it to occur to explain some of the conditions observed in this universe. (Why every direction is as similar to all others, and why the overall background radiation in this universe is as smooth as it is, despite the lumpiness and clumpiness we see.)
According to a 2005 article in Scientific American, the outer 1/5 of our universe consists mostly of ionized hydrogen. Certainly, the processes going on by conventional theories do not support this ionization. If the C-R theory is true, however, our universe could easily be filled with large quantities of ionized hydrogen, being continually replenished over time, so that our universe ALWAYS looks approximately like it does right now. The same processes are always going on, and will always go on, and always have gone on. The matter that is ionizing right now may be different, but some always will do so, and the processes are continuing.
In the standard Big Bang scenario, our universe was almost pure energy until approximately 300,000 years after the start, and then everything expanded and cooled-off sufficiently for the universe to de-ionize. Some later not-yet-understood process later re-ionized the hydrogen we see today, but that is a “temporary” situation for maybe a few billion more years at best. Eventually, the entire universe is supposed to expand beyond current recovery, and the universe will cool-off, fade-out, and die with more of a light whimper sometime in the far future.
The C-R theory is not deterred by the 2.7 K radiation coming evenly from all directions. The C-R theory claims that it is not the faded initial burst from the Big Bang, but is more similar to an averaged-out roll of distant thunder, but coming from all directions in a continually refreshed manner. The topic was covered in an earlier blog, so I would just briefly mention it here.
The level of electrical activity found with enormous currents also supports the C-R theory, and the C-R theory supports those processes to create that activity. Earth’s own aurora’s have been measured with currents over 1,000,000 AMPS of current (with each ampere representing 6.02 1023 electrons per second). Jupiter’s moon Io has had a flux-tube with at least 5,000,000 amps of current measured between Io and Jupiter. Certainly, standard theory is at a total loss to try to explain the origin of that level of electrical currents, especially on a continuing basis, and right in our own solar system.
Some polarized light measurements in distant regions of space have been computed to suggest a current something like 1019
In all of the above areas, only the Comedy-Recycling theory gives a simple, easy to understand (but not to accept or believe) mechanism to explain those areas. That it does so in the normal cause of operation of this universe is either an extremely remarkable coincidence, or it IS TRUE. Mainstream science may take a very long time to accept or consider the C-R theory as viable. That is why I am appealing directly to you, the blog readers out there, to at least give the C-R theory a fair chance. Consider it on it’s own merits, and judge for yourselves whether my reasoning is sound or fictional. Do the observed facts fit the C-R theory scenarios, the way the C-R theory says this universe SHOULD BE running? They either will, or they will not. They do, or they don’t.
Do not just take my word for the observations, but check out independent sources and see if the above things I’ve mentioned are really occurring. Then evaluate the performance of ALL existing theories vs. the C-R theory, and see if one fits ALL the facts better.