The Difficulty
I had been wanting to do this blog for a while, and I am finally getting around to it. My webmaster found a tremendous quote, which summarizes the C-R theory’s dilemma.
Here is the quote:
“The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones, which ramify, for those brought up as most of us have been, into every corner of our minds.”
—John Maynard Keynes
What the quote says is the real challenge for the C-R theory, purging-out the old information sufficiently to allow a newer and better model to take hold. I can say that I do not enjoy being the bearer of bad news, or to be the one who must tell others that I think they are very wrong. I would much rather be one of the multitude to go along with the consensus.
Where the problem originates is that I believe the multitude is wrong. I cannot prove it, but I can suggest where to look, what to look for, how to measure it, and the general indications of a C-R theory Black-HoleC-R in the vicinity.
The C-R theory will try to suggest why nature is so fond of Black-HolesC-R, and finds them so useful. I would like to cover, in the most ironic way, the major ideas that only the C-R theory seems to have noticed. If science were truly objective, these items should have been obvious enough to have been noted long ago.
Where the irony lies is that the real amateurs, and newcomers will probably gain the ability to grasp these new concepts from the C-R theory long before the professionals will accept these ideas. This stems more because they are not as firmly welded to the older Newtonian ideas about gravity, and are more ready to accept the curvature-based ideas. They can appreciate the benefits to this new way of thinking, and are more willing to accept the evidence that is already known about.
To help “sell” the C-R theory ideas, I thought I would try to state them simply, and try to allude to their simplicity, to make it more obvious that there could be (and SHOULD BE) a connection that nature is keen to exploit.
One of the first “obvious” items that science has totally overlooked is that a Black-HoleC-R selects and attracts it’s dinner BY MASS. All Black-HolesC-R eat the heavier subatomic particles, like the proton and the neutron, while the quantum “iffiness”, or nature of the electrons spreads them out sufficiently that the electrons escape, and flee the vicinity. The electrons “fluffiness” allows them to remain far enough away from the nucleus to flee, and avoid becoming dinner.
What I imagine is that the electron-cloud can escape-away as long as 50.0…01% of the electron-cloud remains active, outside the Schwarzschild radius, and no more than 49.9…9% enters in. This is one case where the C-R theory supports quantum tunnelling, in the case of the electrons escaping as part of the menu-entree.
When beams of matter are seen leaving the Black-Hole’sC-R vicinity, The C-R theory maintains it is the “rejected” electrons grouping together magnetically to flee, in spite of each electrons natural repellence for their fellow free-electrons. Because they bunch together and collimate to over 99.99% of the speed of light, this gives the whole group the ability to punch-out and get away.
The next area is where the C-R theory has the most profound differences with the mainstream. The real “business-end” of the Black-HoleC-R is immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius. This is THE ONLY interesting portion of the Black-HoleC-R, and the only volume of spacetime where the total gravitational energy is MINIMUM. If you can imagine, the escape velocity in that volume [the Neutral ZoneC-R] is at or above the speed-of-light. What this accomplishes is it “traps” the particles and photons in their individual “resonance-wells” from which they are incapable of escaping.
While this would be catastrophic by most understandings, this is what prevents any external knowledge of the trapped particles from “leaking out” regardless of the amount of trapped charges present. This is also the prime reason that the Black-HoleC-R exists, to trap, collect, concentrate, and refresh matter and energy in a recoverable manner.
A new note here for 2011: The Black-HoleC-R does such a magnificent job of “camoflaging” or hiding the trapped electrical charges, that science has completely missed that this is going-on. Science believes that: Since gravity “escapes” from a Black-HoleC-R, so will knowledge of stored electrical charges and spinning mass. The C-R theory states that there is a totally different mechanism to produce gravity (called curvature) and to express “speed-of-light” based forces. The “speed-of-light’ based forces are suppressed, or turned-off [But never, NEVER eliminated].
Although it is not “standard science”: From the millions of Black-HolesC-R suspected to exist, one would wonder just why nature is so fond of them. If they were as useless as standard theory suspects, that would make a “fool” of nature, big-time, for using so many.
On the other hand, if the Black-HoleC-R was designed to fulfill a purpose that could be handled (as well) by no other object within this universe, nature would need a very large number.
The C-R theory idea is that Black-HolesC-R are essential “tools” of nature to recycle matter and energy. The Black-HoleC-R stores-up the protons and neutrons in an electrically neutral manner. The important point is that, once the Black-HoleC-R is primed, any external disturbance may suffice to trigger the escape mechanism.
Two tests, to show that this might be occurring would be to look for “excess positive charge” accumulations in supernovae, and excess electrons shed outside of every “dining” Black-HoleC-R. Where this is apparent, the supernova expansion may continue for thousands of years beyond the time where a simple expansion (driven only by the initial heat) would have cooled down.
While I cannot say that this happens in all supernovas, there are some known that do have excessive positive charges. (Place links here)
Another critical area to the proper role of understanding is that, in the C-R theory Black-HoleC-R, at the exact center of the Black-HoleC-R curvature is at a minimum, and the potential energy of matter there is MAXIMUM, or, essentially identical to matter lying far from the Black-HoleC-R. This compares to the hypothesized black hole, with a near-infinitely dense singularity. Science believes the exact opposite of what is more likely to be true.
I will cover another aspect of the Black-HoleC-R plan in the next section of this blog.
I would also like to cover an article by Steve Nadis (which was the featured cover story, on the cover, too) titled Beyond the Event Horizon. I read it in the June, 2011 Discover Magazine, (with the text starting on page 29) concerning new ideas from Andrew Hamilton, a professor at Colorado University (Boulder).
The article deals with his insights into the interior of a conventional black hole, derived from supercomputer simulations and from years of study. There are some very close similarities to his thinking, and that of the C-R theory. His equations do seem to recognize the two Schwarzschild radii, the outer one (also thought-of as the event horizon), and another one, somewhat further inside.
According to this article, his computer simulations expect that, at the inner Schwarzschild radius, the energy level is near infinite for matter residing inside. He believes that some matter may experience a time-like reversal while actually journeying towards the singularity, whereas other matter may experience ever increasing energy accelerations on the way to the singularity*. (Equations simply DO NOT understand, and cannot handle what happens when the escape velocity is OVER the speed-of-light.)
This is one area where the C-R theory expects something completely different. In this special zone [the Neutral ZoneC-R], because the escape velocity is above the speed-of-light, this neutralizes all electromagnetic activity. What happens is that this entire inside region IS already forced-into a minimum-energy configuration since light cannot move-about freely. Because of this, the expected activity level (by mainstream science) is literally undetectable. While matter and energy both “exist”, they are essentially shut-down, unresponsive, turned-off, jailed, and confined.
The C-R theory therefore expects that this whole region, between the two Schwarzschild radii, acts something like a one-way piggy bank, where nature safely keeps everything that was swallowed, compactly stored. Because of the extremely-ionized character of the protons (unaccompanied by their original electrons), if any external disturbance can “shift that level of curvature” downward [out of the Neutral ZoneC-R], that will allow the internal contents to start to explosively escape. (Hint: Think of a “Jack-in-the-box”, opening-up after reaching that certain “POP”.)
The lowest-possible-energy (and real-time) level imposed-upon this region makes this region the ideal “tool” for restoring entropy, as re-concentrating both {while emitting nothing} forces both matter and energy to be 100% thermodynamically efficient. This is the second part of nature’s grand strategy for Black-HolesC-R (as compared to black holes, which only end-up with “enlarged” singularities).
It is this practical “ecological” use of the Black-HoleC-R, and the dual-use of the existing properties of matter to accomplish a second, vital mission (restoring entropy, and recovering 100% of everything eaten by the Black-HoleC-R) that convinced me that I had uncovered something interesting.
NOTE: That new understanding was 100% dependent on a new understanding the role of curvature, and how it allowed “gravity” to be felt outside the Black-HoleC-R, while radiating absolutely nothing.
Interestingly, at the end of an article in the newest Scientific American Magazine, June, 2011 issue, (and also their cover story), titled Living in a Quantum World (starting on page 38), by Vlatko Vedral, is on the Quantum-nature of large-scale objects. Near the very end, the possibility was also recognized (or suggested that it might be the case) that gravity IS NOT a true force, on an equal playing-field with electricity.
To quote excerpts from next to last paragraph on page 43: (the) “… possibility is that gravity is not a force in its own right… If true, it would demote gravity from the status of a fundamental force…” While not fully embracing the C-R theory concept that gravity is an after-effect (or a leftover residue) from the property of curvature changing the energy-carrying capacity of mass, caused by curvature “modulating” the mass’es capacity, allowing it to absorb (or incorporate more real-time) energy, or releasing energy (as acceleration, or kinetic energy) when a mass is dropped into “a slower-timeframe”, and forcing-out a small amount of stored energy.
While conventional theories conclude that we now live in “a golden age of galaxies”, which will fade-away with time, the C-R theory concludes that our universe has always looked approximately like it looks, right now, and it always maintains that consistency. [I will not fill-in that idea right now, in this blog. It has been covered in earlier blogs.]
The Discover article goes on to suggest that Prof. Hamilton will try to tackle the expected difficulties further inside, in the (conventional) black hole. This is where I think the C-R theory insights from the last 30 years might come in very useful. Further inside, the C-R theory expects that there is a fully closed-off region, exactly critical, with exactly enough matter, at exactly the right density, to close-off this section.
This is not a coincidence, but it is the reason that the Black-HoleC-R is fully-established in the first place. It is this completely-closed region (or volume) at the center that establishes the complete [100% of lightspeed] curvature to make the Neutral ZoneC-R possible, and all of the additional mass consumed only adds-in to the Neutral ZoneC-R. This C-R theory Neutral ZoneC-R is sort-of the business end of the Black-HoleC-R, but it is also the same region suspected by Prof. Hamilton’s simulations. The results are totally different, but the parallels are encouraging. If he is willing to accept my thinking, I could show him just how simple the real answer is.
HINT: Our “complete universe” is just such an Active ZoneC-R, or IS an inside of a (very large sized) Black-HoleC-R. All of it’s observable properties suggest that this is the case, already, (and always has been so, although that part is not as obvious).
Andrew Hamilton’s approach is much closer to the C-R theory’s view, and that is why I might be able to help him realize a very simple solution, with testable answers (that have already been passing my tests for 30 years). His goals (to learn the true nature of a Black-HoleC-R) are the same as those of the C-R theory, although our methods are totally different.
What I would hope to guide him to is a totally new (to him) way to approach the Black-HoleC-R, by understanding the situation it is in. While this method does not rely upon the equations for insight (which is better, because those equations simply fail to cover any situation wherever the escape velocity is over lightspeed), there is a simplicity and straightforwardness to the C-R theory’s approach that makes it intuitive, and testable.
Since his ideas are also featured on videos he made for a local science museum, he has produced some videos simulating what the inside of the (conventional) black hole is supposedly like. I hope I can eventually find someone capable of producing a simulation for what I imagine the Neutral ZoneC-R would be like. [Boring, but necessary to understand how “being-forced” into doing absolutely NOTHING could prove useful to nature.]
The article in Discover writes about his desire to find others with potential insights, and I figure that I may well be the only one of those few who thinks he has a new answer. I would at least like to pitch my ideas to him, one-on-one, and try to guide him to a new line of reasoning. I would hope I could build upon the ideas he has already understood that virtually no other current professional has championed. It would be a much shorter jump for him to convert-over-to (or try a test-drive-of) the C-R theory ideas. Who better (than me) to advocate it’s potential usefulness and cover the path of reasoning that suggests why this is a good idea.
The C-R theory is the only theory I know-of that wants evidence of excess electrons to be found associated with every Black-Hole’sC-R diet. That I have publicly stuck-my-“C-R theory’s” neck on the chopping-block, to live-or-die with the results, if excess electrons are not found in every feeding Black-Hole’sC-R vicinity, might demonstrate my sincerity of beliefs. I have found enough known instances where this seems to be the case that it goes beyond a random coincidence.
I think I am the happiest person on the planet about the two, 25,000 light-year-tall lobes filled with excess electrons, and possessing 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy, found last-year above and below our galaxy’s central bulge. This may well be nature’s best gift to the C-R theory, evidence-wise. (I have not yet seen any other theory overjoyed with the results of that new finding.)
One of the recent specials on cable-tv stated that scientists now believe there are at least 20,000 lesser Black-HolesC-R stuffed-in to the central 3 light-years of our galaxy’s center. I know of no other theory which expects that one Black-HoleC-R (representing matter already at it’s gravitational-minimum-energy) will not eat another Black-HoleC-R, much less gravitationally attract it. This is completely-opposite of the Newtonian expectations, where every large mass gravitationally attracts every other large mass, ALL of the time.
Once one realizes that matter at (a gravitational) minimum-energy has already lost everything lose-able, so that no further energy loss is possible, one realizes the Newtonian view MUST BE WRONG in this particular instance. (Hint: Can an ice cube already at absolute zero further cool-off another ice cube also at absolute zero, no. They are already BOTH as low, temperature-wise, as is possible.) Only after one thinks in this manner, can one start to appreciate the difference in expectations from a Black-HoleC-R, as a “container-of: a minimum-energy region in space-time”, vs. a black hole, where gravity continually surrenders energy based only upon position, with no accountability ever placed upon a source, or a host to provide that energy.
This is one of the KEY differences in the C-R theory’s expectations. Matter inside a Black-HoleC-R IS ALREADY AT MINIMUM energy. It cannot go any lower.
This region is where conventional {Newtonian} equations expect huge energies to be available, continually liberated from matter, almost like an M.C. Escher waterfall, or a perpetual-energy machine.
This is why there are no “celestial-fireworks” noted when Black-HolesC-R approach each other, and there are no space-rattling, dimension-shakings released (or radiated-away) when Black-HolesC-R merge, because they never (or very rarely) do so. Even if they do merge, it is more like watching an ice-cube at absolute zero melt, or adding a zero to a zero (or multiplying a zero by another zero). Your “nothing” does not change or increase by merging again and again with other “nothings”.
I have been noticing this web-sites statistics that we are gaining a lot of visitors from China recently, and also from Japan a short while ago. The site was not designed for a literal translation, in some instances, so I hope the on-line translators do it justice. I fear that the “Comedy” portion will make no sense at all, or be total nonsense, if it is literally translated.
On the other hand, I am glad that they seem to be visiting in increasing numbers, and they are all welcome to try-to understand it. I hope that at least some of those visitors can start to comprehend my ideas. I do apologize that some of the ideas are too new and too different from the current thinking to catch-on (and be accepted) right away.
I would invite anyone to write-in if there are concepts you do not understand, or if you have further questions. I keep hoping that other individuals will start to re-post, and possibly re-describe these ideas in their language, once they begin to understand what I am trying to convey. I do try to answer sincere questions from readers, and they help me to improve my communications, once I know where common misconceptions (about my ideas) occur.
That I know of, there is no other web-site that I have found that approaches understanding a Black-HoleC-R in similar terms. I continually attempt to find new ways to pass along these concepts, to show why these new ideas may be reasonable (although they may seem very strange at first).
I would agree with anyone that, by the existing text-books, the C-R ideas are absurd, and cannot occur. Over the years of science, the books of the day are only as good as the people who write them, and they must build-upon that which they have been taught, or understood.
I cannot say that I was “taught” the C-R theory directly. The ideas evolved at one specific time (early February 1979), bundled-together as a “package-deal”. I can state that when I contemplated why gravity was present outside a (generic) black hole, but light could not emerge, it was the sudden understanding of HOW nature could accomplish that task, without resorting to magic or “pulling a rabbit out of a hat” {i.e., getting something from nothing}, that I have refined for 30 some years.
While I could not prove the C-R theory academically (or in a court of law), there is a straightforward simplicity to it, a human-understandability [without requiring multiple Ph.D’s], that I find very satisfying. I believe I understand it, and have simple new insights into how our universe really works.
There seems to be a predictive ability to suggest where to look, phenomena to look-for, and how to test these ideas against reality. I would agree with critics that the C-R theory requires outrageous things, as understood by conventional theory. That nature often seems to supply just those type-of outrageous items, in every place one looks, may demonstrate that science has been missing many items because “they could not, and should not be so”.
After I started thinking in this new manner, and after I understood how these Black-HolesC-R fill-in an ecological gap in this universe, and occupy a niche that no other real object can replace. The real “new” question is: If nature DOES NOT use something like (this method), then, WHY NOT?
My goal is also to slowly slide the incoming reader along a progressive path, from first-hearer, skeptic, understander, appreciater, advocater, and lastly teacher or instructor. That fewer numbers will reach each higher (next) level, but slowly, the cycle of learning will advance.
If the C-R theory is wrong, then we will know yet another way nature does not work. If that is the case, then why have I seen so many items that seem to support that hypothesis? I have tried to list many of them, to show that it is not ALL in my imagination.
It took me many years before I felt a strong enough conviction to place my name on these items, and place them on-line, on the internet, and claim that this might be how nature works. If only part-of these new ideas is correct, then we have additional information that was never known before.
From what I have read, Newton was never happy at all that gravity acted at a distance, with no direct mechanical connection, like a lever or a pulley, which would have been accepted in medieval times. The problem is: he succeeded too well in describing how matter behaved when falling from above the surface of the earth.
Make no mistake though, science HAS NOT TESTED the Newtonian concept for matter falling (and accelerating?) while below the earth’s surface, for any appreciable distance. Most textbooks simply accept the concepts, and never give-away that WE CANNOT test the results, even down to the bottom of earth’s crust, much less to anywhere further below. (That DOES NOT stop professors from boldly testing students on the answers for what gravity IS THOUGHT to do, even though, the results [like dropping a ball all the way down to the core-mantle boundary, and monitoring the acceleration all that way down] are way beyond today’s technology.
I would encourage everyone to do the simple experiment on gravity, but with a viewpoint “assuming” a curvature-based understanding, and simply check the answer that nature already gives you. If you do not sense a paradox, or perceive a conundrum, try the experiment again with the view “Does gravity TRULY accelerate mass from MAXIMUM curvature, all the way, back down to MINIMUM curvature” somewhere else, if it WILL NOT DO SO right in front of you, where you CAN actually test it? If so, is not gravity inconsistent, or double-standarded? {an intentionally awkward term is intended here to suggest the true irony of the result vs. the standard expectations}
I do not mind if you do not believe ME, but ask gravity (or curvature) for a straight answer, as you test it, and honestly evaluate the answer that you get, every time.
As the last part of this blog, although I do not ENJOY saying so, in order for the C-R theory ideas to catch-on worldwide, it might be necessary to replace TWO generations of experts. Those who are alive and well today (who clearly do not believe these new ideas), and the generation that was taught by them. Afterward, a new generation will arise to look freshly at the C-R theory ideas, and not feel that they are wrong. By then, newer pioneers may come along, and see through areas where I was wrong, or clung-on too tightly to old ideas I could not overcome, and learned an even truer nature for how this universe works.
I often invite readers to test the C-R theory ideas, and let them evolve to become your ideas, too. There may still be plenty of “undiscovered treasures” remaining within that I have not yet uncovered. I expect that there may well be very simple items that have not occurred to me, that the interested home reader may find obvious. If this is the case, I look forward to any items the home-reader can tie-in, and connect to the C-R theory ideas.
That I know-of, there are no graduate students intentionally trying to prove, or disprove the C-R theory ideas, or to evaluate the claims with a supercomputer, to see if there is any validity to them.
I would also invite any budding filmmakers-to-be to produce short videos illustrating the Black-HoleC-R eating the heavy nucleus, and rejecting the electrons. I would also like to see short videos illustrating the release of the pent-up positive charges. This will contribute towards the incredible staying-power of the supernova, and why they continue to expand long after they should have cooled-off.
Thank you for visiting the C-R theory blog. I hope you find these ideas reasonable, or at least challenging. I always try to note the most recent developments, and look for items that could tie-in to the C-R theory’s expectations.
If you do not believe these ideas at first, that is expected. Just keep in mind the arguments I used, and consider the areas I have mentioned. Mull them over, in your mind, and try to appreciate their overall simplicity. Try to imagine why nature might chose to operate this way, and how it solves some dilemmas. If you honestly cannot accept these ideas for now, keep the C-R theory in mind, and look for many of the phenomenon I tried to alert you to. Check back in a few months, or a year, or 5 years, and re-evaluate how these ideas hold-up over time.
Jerry Reynard