April Fool’s Day Blog for 2015 Celebrating those who have been fooled by Nature

April Fool’s Day Blog for 2015 Welcome to this special blog for April Fool’s Day, 2015.  Let’s get to some traditional humor first, then we can get back to the new items, and the serious science-stuff afterward. It gives me great pleasure to announce the promotion of the C-R theory’s faithful mascot, the Jester.  He is being promoted from (lowly) couch potato, to [Corporate] Suite potato paygrade.  Hearty Congratulations are in order. A brief quote from the Jester is: My favorite days of the workweek are – the ones that are already over!! And speaking of the Jester, for those who did not get to read his report from the April Fool’s Day blog back in 2012, click-on his FISH STORY  to read all about it. A new 2015 answer to an age-old, unanswered question, taken from Alice In Wonderland: Q: Why is a raven like a writing desk? A C-R theory revised presentation, created to be added-in to my April Fool’s Day blog: I have pondered enough to create a new, humorous answer to Lewis Carroll’s, age-old, unanswered question: Why is a raven like a writing desk?  {NOTE: In today’s popular media, the current-collective wisdom suggests (and now accepts) this as the best conventional answer: Because, Poe wrote on both of them!!!} In keeping-up with the story of Alice In Wonderland, I slightly revised my answer from a few years back, in a previous blog, to suggest an answer to that question that is more in keeping with the paradoxes in situations, with the sense–nonsense tradition, that gives the fable’s dialog it’s endearing charm. New Answer: A...

December, 2014 — March, 2015 Blog

December 2014 – March, 2015 Blog I would like to welcome our 150,000th visitor and beyond, as well as all who have visited, to the Comedy-Recycling theory.  I would invite everyone who is not satisfied with the Big Bang theory, to try-out the C-R theory, and see if you do not find the universe much more human-understanding-friendly, after reading about this theory. Happy pi ( π) Day, Everyone This blog is being posted on pi day, 3-14-15.  Pi, (π) is an important math and scientific symbol, and deserves it’s one day a century of fame.  Cherry π is also one of my favorite desserts. We Joined the Natural Philosophy Alliance Near the end of November, my webmaster and myself went to the Natural Philosophy Alliance 2014 conference in Baltimore, MD.  There were many interesting presentations, including many not considered as viable by mainstream science.  There were some that have implications favorable to the C-R theory. Several presenters arrived at similar conclusions, but with entirely different reasoning-paths.  The C-R theory is based upon a somewhat natural philosophical reasoning, and my webmaster found a documentary describing the group, and recommended joining it to me.  I was favorably impressed with the attendees and presenters at this year’s conference, and I think this group would fit-in well with some of the C-R theory’s strong points. I may discuss some of this year’s presentations more thoroughly after reviewing some video footage digitally recorded at the conference.  It would not be fair to rely exclusively upon my memory of the presentations, without reviewing the recordings. I will include a link to their website on this site,...

June-July-August-September-October 2014 Blog

Welcome to our 125,000th, 130,000th, 135,000th, and 140,000th visitors, and beyond.  I’ve delayed long enough, that it is now back to school time, which historically has been our busiest time of the year for visitors.  I definitely would like to welcome any new visitors, and encourage you to keep an open mind, if possible. New Look, Better Results with Mobiles and Tablets We have upgraded our looks, and made some adjustments/improvements to our web-site, to make it work better with Mobile Applications and Tablets.  I also redesigned our logo a bit, to include the Jester lying on a Black-Hole C-R, which, as a massless graphic illustration (as opposed to a true mass), he can easily do. I debated whether to have the Jester say “While I’ll admit that I’m lying on a Black-Hole C-R, in the new logo, the C-R theory is not lying on Black-Holes C-R, as it now understands them.”  It did not escape my notice that our critics [if there are any] could say: “Since the Jester is lying on a Black-Hole C-R, maybe that is a subtle clue that the C-R theory is just fabricating the answers”.  Such is not the case. I also added more colors to the recycling symbol, to indicate a more complex amount of ongoing recycling, with more subtle intricacies than conventional theories expect.  I did want to post a graphic of a Black-Hole C-R as part of the new logo, as the new understanding of the Black-Hole C-R is such an important part of the C-R theory. The cover story for an article in the October, 2014 Scientific American about...

May 2014 Blog – An Alternative to The Big Bang

NEW TAG LINE: The best alternative theory of choice for those who do not believe the Big Bang. A brief follow-up on the 2.7K radiation from the April Blog – or A Glowing report One of the first topics I covered in the April, 2014 blog, was the announcement that “Science” found what they claimed was “The smoking gun”, or the evidence for hyperinflation modulated into the background 2.7K radiation.  When I reminded home-readers that to find this modulation, scientists had to disregard the “other” 9,999,999 parts in 10,000,000 of the 2.7K background radiation. Just yesterday (as I am writing this new section), [May 3rd, 2014], it occurred to me that, when one considers the “evidence” behind the 2.7K, from a Big Bang standpoint, not only is the background 2.7K, a remnant from the original “bang” itself, but the glow also should take into account the additional time, reputed to be 380,000 years, that the entire universe remained so hot and glowing, for that entire time.  Afterward, when everything de-ionized, when the contents of the universe cooled-off, what was to become the 2.7K (now) should have been based upon the entire 380,000 year-old glow.  What I just considered was, how can science maintain that the initial flash, in one trillionth of one trillionth of one trillionth of a second, was not somehow affected, if not substantially diluted, by the glowing, expanding ball that [they claim] was given-off by the entire universe, growing larger and glowing for 380,000 years. What surprises me is that no one else seems to have thought of this “discrepancy” before, that quite possibly an expanding 380,000 year...

April 2014 Blog, and, Welcome to our 120,000th visitor

Many Exciting New Developments, plus, welcome to our 120,000th visitor, and beyond Welcome to our 120,000th visitor to this web site.  It has been a while since I blogged, but there have been many developments.  There have been many items in the news that featured topics of interest to the C-R theory. Anything involving the multitude of ions, magnetic fields, high energy charged positive-ion particles, supermassive Black-Holes C-R, and the like has generally been good news for the C-R theory.  Only the C-R theory regards these types-of items as evidence in favor of a C-R theory like pathway of interactions in this universe. One part in 10,000,000 as significant? Recently, mainstream science announced that they had discovered “The Smoking Gun”, so to speak, or a “modulation pattern” in the background 2.7K radiation, indicating evidence for hyperinflation (or at least for the initial period of inflation) after the Big Bang.  The C-R theory position is that this “new” evidence is even more tentative and flimsy than what has already been accepted.  I read that they had to “discard” the other 9,999,999 parts of the 1 in 10,000,000 parts of the 2.7K radiation to find this modulation pattern. Location [on earth], location(s) [outlying], and location(s) [more towards the center] Of course, the C-R theory maintains that our universe has always been here, and never started off with a Big Bang.  The “uniformity” of the background radiation from all directions is not anomalous at all, but is simply both allowed and expected.  With sufficient time available to equalize, temperature-wise everywhere inside, it is no wonder that the 2.7K is so uniform. The...

September 2013 Milestone, over 100,000 visitors, and new comments

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 101,000th visitor. I was recently looking at the files I wrote at the time of our 25,000th 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...

How what was to be the July Blog became the August Blog

How what was to be the July Blog became the August Blog Welcome to our 90,000th visitor to well beyond our 95,000th visitor, and to everyone else.  There was recently a set of specials on (generic) black holes on the Science channel, including a few new programs first aired in 2013.  I still cringe when I hear their "experts" bemoaning the lack of understanding of their (generic) black holes, and the mysteries, especially on what lies on the inside.  What bothers me the most is: They always interview the same people, authorities who tell you that they do not understand what goes on inside the (generic) black hole.  My suggestion would be: find someone with a reasonable confidence that they DID understand what was going on inside. [this author, perhaps] I would still maintain that, among ALL the competition, the C-R theory has what is: the most likely to be the correct answers; from the simple understanding, the Occam’s Razor principle, where the simplest idea is the most likely one to be found correct, and the real-world fit, where what we DO actually find in nature matches the C-R theory’s expectations far closer than does the big bang theory. I desire to be more like a knowledgeable tour guide to you, gently guiding our home readers to the most likely places to showcase the significant answers, than the arrogant "know-it-all", who is more interested in personal credit for any new ideas than in your understanding of the situation.  The recent influx of visitors may bode well for the C-R theory, and help to end the long drought of misunderstanding...

More Good News for the C-R Theory, and Celebrations of Visitor’s Milestones

More Good News for the C-R Theory, and Celebrations of Visitor’s Milestones 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 75,000th, 76,00th, 77,000th,...

April Fool’s Day Blog for 2013

I delayed so long coming up with a new blog, I decided to hold off until April Fool’s Day to post a new blog.  I will cover a few recent developments first, then I will return to a common theme for the C-R theory; that most of the world’s scientists are already completely fooled on some of the most basic properties of this universe, and that April Fool’s Day could have been designed (or designated) in their “honor” [if being designated as a fool is an honor]. I would also like to thank the visitors to this web site, now that we have passed the 70,000 visitor, 71,000th visitor, and 72,000th visitor mark.  Whether anything from this site’s new ideas is sinking-in (or just floundering), there is no where else you can find these ideas in such a concentrated form.  NOTE: Whether you accept or reject these ideas, you may freely re-post them elsewhere without needing extra permission from me.  I am more interested in establishing these ideas as better alternatives to what is commonly believed.  I would hope that some, if not all of our home-readers will eventually come to accept these ideas. Is the Standard Theory already so “April Fooled” by Nature, unfortunately not just one day per year, but 365 (and a quarter more plus change) days each year, that they cannot tell the difference, or “get the joke”? I might try to prepare a list of the types of phenomena that the C-R theory pathways should provide a much better explanation for.  Standard theory has pre-rejected these ideas, without ever discussing or testing them, as...

December, 2012- January, 2013 Blog

December, 2012 and January, 2013 Blog I would like to welcome our 59,000th, 60,000th, 61,000th, 62,000th, 63,000th, 64,000th and 65,000th visitors, belatedly to this web site.  Welcome to everyone else who visited, too.  Those 7,000-some visitors were just those arriving at the home page.  Some uncounted readers went directly to other pages in the theories, PDF’s, or blogs, and do not figure in the home page’s totals.  To be fair, I log in at least once a day onto the site, and it counts me each log-in. I would like to put in a plug for the only known contest in all of science that might give one of this web-site’s readers the only opportunity in this millennium to name one of the basic properties of this universe for science.  NOTE: For now, mainstream science does not recognize that the energy-value properties of mass in this universe change with position.  Consider: the mass’s height in a gravitational field affects it’s energy level, here on earth, from a maximum amount of time-clocking, and energy-content at the center of the earth, to the least energy location, [approximately at the Core Mantle Boundary, or CMB], where curvature is greatest, and time on earth runs the slowest, for the minimum energy, real-time position. [NOTE: The standard Newtonian textbook answer is, time runs slowest at the surface of the earth, and runs faster as one approaches the center of the earth.  This WOULD be the case IF ONLY our earth had an averaged-out density, uniform throughout, as the standard textbooks use in their examples.] This missed value-change is both good news, and bad news,...

A Millennium naming contest, spouting-off and a big shake-up?

November blog: A Contest, a Funnel diagraml follow-up, a big shake-up, and… I would like to welcome the first time visitors to this website and to this blog.  I would also like to welcome our 58,000th visitor, and those who have joined whoever it was, before and after. It’s About TIME, for a contest!! I have decided to create a contest to name the property I have described, within the C-R theory, but never yet named.  The property of mass inside this universe is unique to the C-R theory: the idea that mass increases it’s energy very slightly when lifted-up, and decreases it’s energy whenever it is lowered into a greater gravitational curvature.  NOTE: This time-varying property totally ceases inside a Neutral Zone C-R, yet it also increases, to it’s maximum value, at the location of “The Great Attractor”. The stakes: It is not very often that someone, (especially, an individual), gets a chance to name a basic and fundamental property of the universe.  GOAL: To creatively, scientifically, and if possible, punfully describe this property, creating a new, or recycled (from some relevant but parallel-like process), scientific term to describe it.  You may base this term upon a Latin or Greek word, or derive it from any concept common to humans, (within the current or past POPULAR media), or related to time, quantity, filled-up–to–empty, memorable and fairly easily pronounceable. The final-decision judgement will be the author’s, but I might take into account sentimental favorites, supported by the most individual responders-in (and not spam-bots pretending to be humans).  I have not yet made up my mind, but I reserve the...

Alight at the End of the Funnel, and Welcomes

54,000th – 48,000th  visitors, new blog software, and some reader’s rave reviews, Alight at the End of the Funnel, and the C-R theory’s “Secret Weapon”. I would like to welcome our 54,000th, 53,000th, 52,000th , 51,000th and our 50,000th visitor, and the 49,000th and the 48,000th  visitors to the home page, plus all the others before and after.  If I were more cynical and worldly, I would say: “It’s about time you got here!!”, but in reality, I am very thankful that you decided to come and look at this web-site. Speaking of visitors, I intend to re-visit some topics semi-randomly throughout this blog, so these will re-appear after some digressions.  Since this blog is already much later than I wanted it to be, instead of re-editing it, to concentrate sections, and delay this for a few more weeks, I will try to tie in various sections, but leave more randomness than usual, and allow some duplication of thoughts.  I probably got more carried away with writing, than I did with outlining where I wanted to go, in a logical progression.  This blog is more illogical, but still interesting.  Rather than chop it up, and throw away half, I cut and pasted a bit, but still left some things to reappear again, later,  in unexpected places. I have been well pleased with this new blogging software we added from Word Press, and with my ability to easily edit and reply back on a select few of your reader’s comments.  With the exception of clearly commercial spams, and overly mentioning the sending sources, I have been letting most of the...

Insights from the C-R Theory about 3 recent articles, and some Higgs Boson Discovery Comments

Changing Our Look We recently updated our software for the main, web-site in August, 2012, and enhanced the display capabilities for the earlier blogs, and we added a page to collect all of our on-line videos, and feature them, too.  Please feel free to comment with your likes and/or dislikes about our new look.  We are working on other new features to take advantage of our greater capabilities.  (Your suggestions are welcome, too.) We also had our 46,000th visitor in July, and our 47,000th visitor as I polished-up this posting.  I appreciate all who visit, and especially those who return for at least a second helping.  Even I would not fully grasp all of my own ideas if I had not seen them before, without multiple visits to this site.  These ideas are simply too new, and too revolutionary to be comprehended in one sitting (unless you just reject them). Is the C-R Theory Relevant to Link All 3 Separate Mysteries from 3 Recent Articles? Before I start to add in my comments on the announced discovery of the Higgs boson, there are at least 3 significant articles in new magazines that I specifically wanted to comment upon, and show why all 3 articles might each gain better relevance, an.  address much of their mysteries with special help coming exclusively from a C-R theory perspective, that would be totally missed by the standard thinking of mainstream science. Since it covers my favorite topic now, the Black-Hole C-R, [but not from the C-R theory’s view], I would like to start with the cover article from the August, 2012, Scientific American...

May, June, and the start of July blog for 2012

July 4th special update: I just got my electric power back tonight, after waiting 4 days of near 100° F temperatures, having finished this blog.  Before I could send it, a whole line of power poles, which supplied my electric power, snapped in a Friday night storm, and delayed this being posted. As I get ready to send this out, the headline on the news tonight is announcing the possible discovery of the Higgs boson, also called the God particle.  This needs more explanation, with my blog entry later, a few pages down.  I will have the C-R theory comment on this idea, but I would like to state that I seriously doubt this particle will help explain anything.  I will also state that the C-R theory maintains that every particle’s mass and energy still change incrementally, and this is what actually causes what we deem is gravity. I plan to start the next blog tonight, as soon as I e-mail this blog out.  I will still celebrate the discovery of another sub-atomic particle, but I would caution readers not to expect ANY help to YOUR personal understanding from the Higgs boson.  My personal belief is that gravity is still working along the new way claimed by the C-R theory.  This will prove to be far easier to understand that the “mad, catch and toss, perpetual interchange of virtual Higgs bosons, weighing far more than the particles they are supposed to give mass to.” I would like to belatedly welcome both our 45,000th visitor to the home page, and also welcome the 44,000th visitor for some time back in...

Additional April Blog for 2012

First, I would like to welcome our 43,000th visitor, and everyone else, too.  This blog may be posted after your arrival.  [That count of visitors only covers the home page, and not the many other pages home-readers can visit.] I do not know if the international crowd enjoyed it as much, but that blog was the most fun one for me in a very long time.  My webmaster thinks I should add some humor to all the blogs, rather than letting it build-up for a few years, then spring it out all at once.  I keep hoping that mainstream science will start to take seriously the experiment, where home-readers can test for themselves what happens when an object tossed into “lesser” curvature transitions from a greater-curvature state, visits the lower curvature region, but must cut the visit short, and return back to the greatest curvature.  I suspect that thousands of individuals will want to kick themselves for missing something “so obvious” yet so profound, if the C-R theory ideas are ever accepted.  The sad part is that knowledge of: “How nature works” was “hidden in plain sight” all along. To return back to standard science again, after my April-Fool’s Day blog, I would like to continue addressing concerns from new articles that I have read, and items I have learned about, that should be of interest to all home readers.. In a list of the top 600 items of interest from NASA, from the noteworthy things on their list from the year 2010, one of the items admitted that, even with their best supercomputer simulations of a supernova explosion...

April Fool’s Day Blog

I would like to welcome our 42,000th visitor, and by the time this blog is posted, we should be midway to our 43,000th visitor.  I appreciate your taking the time to check out the ideas at this web-site, and I hope you get some useful ideas and concepts here that cannot be obtained anywhere else. Even though the C-R theory has had great success lately in attracting readers from an international perspective, the front portion of this blog will be devoted to a return to my “first love”, or the humorous part of the Comedy-Recycling theory.  The later portion of the blog will be addressing whether most of world, and science too, has already been “April-Fooled” for the last 80-90-some years. [This next part, the April-Fool’s Day part of this blog, is a science-based humor section could be skipped by international readers.  NOTE: This section below IS NOT intended for literal translation into other languages, and is based on common (American) English-language and word-usage items.]  {International readers may resume reading after the partial line of asterisks, at the heading: A New Take on an old experiment}  The Humorous part of the Blog: How is the Schwarzschild radius similar to a good baseball strikeout pitch? The first is a “throne for a curve” ball, and the second is thrown for a curveball. Biochem lab joke: Q:  What is red and green and goes around and around at 100 MPH? A:   A frog in a blender. Q: What has 18 arms, 18 legs, catches flies, and weighs a billion solar masses? A: A supermassive Black-Hole C-R with its own baseball team.   If...

The overall concept of the use (and role) of the Black-HoleC-R in this universe

Welcome to the 41,000th visitor.  Just the other day, the web-site had its 41,000th visitor to the home page, and we’ve been getting as many as 800 visitors in an extraordinary week, and around 600 visitors a week, lately, to all portions of the site. I will try to let the native humorist in me loose for an upcoming April Fool’s Day version of the blog.  I have held-off from the comedy part of the Comedy-Recycling theory for quite a while, and I would like to let loose the punster at least once a year, if possible.  It is also the Jester’s favorite day of the year (my icon for the humorous part of the C-R theory). I would like to address one of my favorite topics, and one often misinterpreted by some of the home readers.  I would like to re-visit many of the basics, and try to re-describe them to new visitors. I would like to point out that, only the C-R theory is bold enough, and self-convinced enough to predict many new, very specific items about the operation of a Black-Hole C-R, the non-generic black hole specifically predicted by the C-R theory.  Having noticed this trend now for over 30 years, and finding as much “known-about” information publicly available as I now know exists, I have a very high level of confidence in the path the C-R theory has taken.  Unfortunately, mainstream science is still plodding-away, towards the twin darknesses, (both dark energy AND dark matter), and looking to those FICTIONAL ideas for their answers. Briefly, I would advise new home-readers that science simply forgot to...

Another Fantastic “gift” for the C-R Theory from NASA

Another Fantastic “gift” for the C-R Theory, from NASA [an item about the Lunar ionosphere], but first:       Welcome to our 40,000th visitor to the home page, and still counting.  Many more have visited the other parts of this web-site, too, without always visiting the home page. I hope you all find what you are looking-for, right here, at the C-R theories.       I was recently looking over a review of last year’s findings (for 2011), and noticed an item that only the C-R theory could appreciate, and welcome “with open arms”. Apparently, some scientists have known about this for many years, but the item was news to me, [although not as surprising as others have felt at this news].       NASA just announced a new theory from one of their scientists about why the lunar ionosphere exists. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/14nov_lunarionosphere/ While the C-R theory does not necessarily agree with this new theory, it is gratifying to learn that some scientists have apparently known for years that there was an ionosphere on the moon.  Another article, I will link to http://www.isas.ac.jp/publications/report/678/67803.html also mentioned that this lunar ionosphere existed some 10’s of km. above the moon’s surface.  It also mentioned that from 500, up to 1000 extra electrons, per cc [or cm3], surround positively charged particles of moondust.  (If one does the math, for the large number of potential cc’s and km’s involved, there should be alot-of-em.)       Elsewhere, an article stated that the Soviet Luna 19 and 22 missions also detected this lunar ionosphere, back when they were operating.       I also found an article about similarities to Mars’ ionosphere.  At least Mars had a thin...

Commentary on the 50 Weirdest Objects in the Cosmos Continues

Part 2 of the blog, about Bob Berman’s 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos, plus more We just recorded our 38,000th visitor the other week, and I would like to thank all of those who have come by to visit.  We also had a record week for visitors and bandwidth served, which means that at least some people are visiting and showing an interest in this site. I’ve been having meetings with my webmaster to discuss positive changes to this site, to try to improve your options at how information is presented, and to give a wider variety of options and looks to first time visitors.  We will try to start to incorporate some of those enhancements in the very near future, probably in 2012. Thanks to all who return regularly to these blogs, and welcome to all first timers.  I try to help readers appreciate the C-R theory’s insights, which mainstream science does not understand, look-for, or want. I left off in the last blog without listing more of the 50 weirdest objects, as I was running out of time, but wanted to get that blog out.  I believe that the C-R theory uniquely can help readers understand some aspects of what we really see, and what is reported.  Astronomers and physicists are reluctant to consider “amateur” points-of-view, and they stick quite firmly to what they were taught.  Usually, that serves them well, unless what they were taught was wrong from the start. For the home-reader, this gives you the opportunity to consider these new ideas before the “insiders”, the full time professional astronomers and cosmologists, will even...

CR Theory Takes on the Weirdest Objects in the Cosmos

October-November blog: There is a special issue of Astronomy magazine for Fall, 2011, that just came out, called : Bob Berman’s 50 Weirdest Objects in the Cosmos, and I let this topical issue bump-back my original lead for this blog which was about the Crab Nebula’s surprises. [I had hinted in the last blog that I wanted to cover the multiverse, but decided the more-immediate opportunities were too fresh and too exciting to cover these other articles that were discussed.  I will save my comments about the multiverse for the next, or a later blog.] I try to regularly visit a certain bookstore, a block away from the theater where I like to catch independent and international films downtown, in Washington DC.  That means I have an excuse to walk one block, and check for the newest issues of many magazines.  I had read the previews for this “new special issue” lead item in this blog, and figured it would be a good possibility to feature some items of interest to the C-R theory’s readers.  The nicest things about some of the 50 weirdest objects in the cosmos is that many of Bob Berman’s selections are probably “weird” specifically for their electromagnetic activities, or unexpected (by mainstream science), high-levels of energy released. I will attempt to cover some of the most interesting items, from the C-R theory view, that were featured in this special issue, in the first part of this blog.  The issue should be available on newsstands now, for a few months.  I would encourage those regular readers of the C-R theory to pick-up or at least,...

Phenomenal Finds

By the time this blog is posted, we may have had our 35,000th recorded visitor to this web site.  Thank you to all who visit, and especially to those who regularly return, to understand this theory better. FOUND: The Reynold’s Layer, in our Milky-Way galaxy, and some nearby galaxies, too.       I was reading an interesting article about what is currently known-about our Milky-Way galaxy, in the September, 2011 issue of Astronomy magazine.  In this article, by 3 authors, I found a mention, starting on page 30, that an astronomer, Ronald Reynolds, already knew about a 6,000 lightyear thick layer of ionized hydrogen gas that exists in our galaxy’s arms.  Ronald Reynolds detected this layer back in 1993, and since then, other nearby galaxies have also been measured as having very similar, ionized-gas-rich areas.       The optical, ultraviolet emissions from the gas, in the Reynolds layer, places it around the 8,000 K temperature range, [other articles state from 4,000 to 10,000 K], which is quite a bit warmer than the cold-dark vacuum that had been expected in a galaxy’s arms, in our earlier cosmology.  Further above this layer, much hotter ionized gasses, although more tenuous in their density and pressure, but in the million degree plus temperature range, are measured out from the galactic plane.       What is even better, [for the C-R theory], when searching-out more information about that phenomenon, I ran into yet another article with an even nicer “gift” for the C-R theory.  It seems that, when measuring the arrival time of pulses from distant pulsars, the high energy photons arrived here, on earth, before the lower energy photons...

Foundations

Welcome to the 33,000th visitor, and to the 33,333rd visitors, and all others, too.  I wanted to note those milestones for this web site, before starting in on this month’s main topic, FOUNDATIONS. Foundations: One of the most significant differences in the C-R theory is a “Foundation” issue. The C-R theory states that every Black-Hole C-R has a completely closed-off region inside.  This is a critical difference, to understand just how nature exploits this issue, and uses this inside region almost like a platform, or a foundation, to build or establish the necessary part of the Black-Hole C-R, the region where spacetime is turned-off, or inactivated. I would like to re-explain this concept yet again, to try to convey the real advantages to using this method, and show why I think nature has taken this approach already. I am trying to help new arrivals to this web site understand just how profound of a difference the Black-Hole C-R has vs. a standard black hole.  The start of the understanding begins with just why a Black-Hole C-R cannot simply collapse into a singularity inside, as it’s more famous counterpart,  (the standard “generic” black hole) is supposed to. To start the appreciation process, let us imagine taking any famous structure built by mankind, then imagine throwing-away or removing the foundation.  Any monument or structure begins anchored to it’s base, and depends upon it for stability, and to share forces generated when storms and stresses threaten it.  With a good foundation, those stresses are channeled and shared throughout the building, as the original architect anticipated.  While there have always been situations later-on that...

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-Hole C-R in the vicinity. The C-R theory will try to suggest why nature is so fond of Black-Holes C-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...

“May I” Reset the Record?

Is something wrong with our universe, or just with our science?HINT: Maybe it is the theory “science” uses to understand the universe that is wrong!!! I was delighted to see this month (April, when I was writing this) that both Scientific American, and Science News had cover articles about problems with our universe, and the Big Bang.  The April 2011 issue of Scientific American featured an article about quantum gaps in the Big Bang theory, and how that theory must be either fixed or replaced.   Shortly after that, Science News for April 23, 2011 had a cover article about cosmic questions, unraveling the universe’s greatest mysteries. Both magazines stated that there is good evidence that scientists DO NOT understand the basic workings of our universe, and there is more mystery than certainty about the ultimate fate of this universe.  The Scientific American article pointed out that inflation, where the universe was thought to have expanded greatly in a very brief period immediately after the initial Big Bang, had more opportunities to ruin our universe than to get it just right. The author, Paul J. Steinhardt, covered the case for inflation, and the equally (if not more-) compelling case against it.  His conclusion is that new data, which should be acquired this year, may confirm or reject the case for the initial wave of inflation. The Science News articles featured a group of 5 different (but related) articles by different authors, mostly reviewing science’s lack of understanding why our universe’s behavior seems so mysterious.  To interested readers, I would call your attention to the box on page 21, and...

A Response to a Reader’s Questions

Welcome to those new readers who are checking this out for the first time.  Welcome back to the rest of you, my regular readers. I would like to answer some questions suggested by readers, and I will try to tackle some areas where the C-R theory may be misunderstood. I had a reader, Jens, from Sweden ask me, if matter inside our universe is contained inside, then, why is it not totally ionized, as I claim matter that gets consumed by the Black-Hole C-R [into the Neutral Zone C-R] is? The answer is that I imagine that all of the matter inside our “observable” universe was here first, beforehand, and then, after concentrating, was sufficient to close-off this universe.  (So), Technically, the matter inside the active part of our universe has never been subjected-to being eaten and entering-through the Schwarzschild radius. After sufficient matter accumulated, this created the inside Active Zone C-R. NOTE: This was probably much earlier than 14 billion years ago, by the C-R theory reasoning. {I could not prove it, however.} Separate AND Unequal: The Active Zone C-R and the Neutral Zone C-R Once this established what I termed an Active Zone C-R, ONLY this closed-universe creates the conditions EXTREME-enough to establish (and maintain) the Neutral Zone C-R.  Because these two separate zones have DIFFERENT properties, with the Active Zone C-R being real-time active, and the Neutral Zone C-R held in a non-interactive manner, the internal (and active) matter does not mix with, and is not ever combined with matter that afterward passes through into the Neutral Zone C-R.  Something like oil and water, the two...

When Black-HolesC-R Try To Merge: A New Line of Thinking

Introducing: A New “Killer App” for 2011 from the C-R theory; how a new line of thinking about how an attempted merger between two supermassive Black-Holes C-R solves two puzzles that conventional theory cannot. This blog was originally to have been posted in January, but other things took priority. In early January, on a Friday, I was mulling over a new analogy to illustrate the C-R theory take on the possible merger between two supermassive Black-Holes C-R.  I used a variation on a specific analogy to better illustrate the major differences in behavior that would only be apparent in one’s expectations when using the C-R theory insights.  In doing so, I believe I came upon a fantastic new insight, that gave me a significant new answer to a profound question that conventional science cannot answer.  Why do Black-Holes C-R only get so big, and why we do not find ever larger ones. I believe I can now uniquely and simply answer the second profound insight, and explain why certain supermassive Black-Holes C-R have been detected, either: not at the exact centers of their galaxy, or in a few cases, have been found to be exiting a galaxy at a great speed. Conventional theory has no good reason to expect that one supermassive Black-Hole C-R should be kicked-out of a galaxy after an attempted merger.  Using a new line of reasoning, the C-R theory can now provide a simple answer at to the why’s and the how’s. I now believe I can generate a new answer to that question, and give you home-readers a simple to understand analogy to solve the...

Slow and Steady into the New Year

I would like to thank all of those incoming readers who re-visit this site.  That suggests to me that you are interested in learning more about the C-R theory views, or you are at least willing to consider the new ideas advocated here. I received an e-mail from an old friend, from my Navy days, stating that he had become a believer in the C-R theory.  That is something I would like to hear more often, that I am starting to make a difference in the views of some readers, against an almost overwhelming tide of different ideas in the textbooks. I told that friend that I thought I had made good progress, and that the last few years had been very kind to the C-R theories, evidence wise.  I supposed, initially (in 1979) that the C-R theory might take 50 years or more to start to become accepted, and only 32 years have passed since I first arrived at the new ways of thinking.  When one considers that virtually all of the textbooks and teachers start-off rejecting the C-R theory’s starting position, [that Black-Holes C-R consume the heavier nucleus (with it’s positive charges)] before they even try to look for a viable alternative; that is progress, albeit more slowly than I would prefer. I have blogged quite a bit in these last two years about the differences in the C-R theory, and those blogs are archived on the side column to the right of the newest blog.  I wanted to try to craft shorter blogs, more often, this year. Briefly, I just came upon an interesting story, today,...

Key Ideas of the C-R Theory

I would like to thank all of those incoming readers who re-visit this site That suggests to me that you are interested in learning more about the C-R theory views, or you are at least willing to consider the new ideas advocated here. I received an e-mail from an old friend, from my Navy days, stating that he had become a believer in the C-R theory That is something I would like to hear more often, that I am starting to make a difference in the views of some readers, against an almost overwhelming tide of different ideas in the textbooks. I told that friend that I thought I had made good progress, and that the last few years had been very kind to the C-R theories, evidence-wise.  I supposed, initially, (in 1979), that the C-R theory might take 50 years or more to start to become accepted, and only 32 years have passed since I first arrived at the new ways of thinking.  When one considers that virtually all of the textbooks and teachers begin by rejecting the C-R theory’s starting position, [that Black-Holes C-R consume the heavier nucleus (with it’s positive charges)], before they even try to look for a viable alternative; that is progress, albeit more slowly than I would prefer. I have blogged quite a bit in these last two years about the differences in the C-R theory, and those blogs used-to-be archived on the side column to the right of the newest blog, with my earlier software [Aug 2012 updated]. I wanted to try to craft shorter blogs, more often, this year. Briefly, I just came upon an...

NASA Gives the C-R theory an “unintentional” gift for the Holidays, and it is just what we’ve always wanted and needed

Welcome to all curious visitors. I would like to celebrate the arrival of our 26,000th visitor a few days ago.  I do wish that I could entice more of the visitors to remain longer, and seriously consider more of the C-R theory’s ideas. On the same day that our 26,000th visitor arrived, NASA announced that they had gone over the WMAP data and discovered two huge lobes, above and below our Milky Way galaxy’s central bulge, filled with excess, high energy electrons.  The lobes each extend about 25,000 lightyears above and below our galaxy’s central bulge. Mainstream science has no real clue that such anomalies existed, and no good idea for a cause. What is most interesting about this is that, to the best of my knowledge, only the C-R theory has been announcing to the world wide web that it expects EVERY feeding Black-Hole C-R to be freeing-up and “spitting-out” excess electrons.  Whether these electrons might come from our galaxy’s central supermassive Black-Hole C-R, or the 10,000 “lesser” Black-Holes C-R, or both, or the electrons come from some other, yet-to-be-discovered process, there ARE 50,000 lightyears wide regions of them now known to exist. That is 25/26 of a lightyear-wide volume of an excess of high-energy electrons (both above and below our galaxy) for EVERY visitor to the C-R theory.  Since nature had to begin preparing for this “near-coincidence” not only 25,000 years ahead-of-time, but also the many years it took light to arrive from that location. [Just a small joke there, it may be an accidental co-incidence that both occurred for the C-R theory on the same day.]...

Welcome to Our 25,000th Visitor

I am preparing this blog slightly before our official 25,000th visitor arrives.  It may be on line by the before that happens.  Technically, the first 6 months this web-site was on line, there was no working counter, so the real count would be higher.  I also regularly re-visit this site to check-up on it, so the real count (discounted for many of my visits) may be closer to a truer count of visitors. Let me state that the C-R theory views are not yet mainstream and are too different to be quickly adopted.  I expected significant opposition and disbelief from incoming first-time visitors. (More disbelief than true opposition, though.) I will try to “sell” my ideas to you (for free, though) thru this web-site. I will try to explain why I now believe gravitational curvature “causes” gravity, rather than the other way around.  That new understanding is quite new, and very different from the mainstream ideas.  Most current scientists are taught the Newtonian views, then given the newer views from Einstein.  What I will try to do is to show where each left-off, and where improvements can be made. The C-R theory is primarily non-mathematical, and based upon situational reasoning.  While I strongly support teaching and learning the formulas, readers should be advised that they are only guidelines, at best.  They sometimes make crude simplifications or approximations, and often miss finer points that can be caught by simple observation. I remember that when I was growing-up, the books of the time stated that aeronautical engineers way-back-then could show by their formulas that a bee could not fly.  Fortunately, the...

What the C-R theory would like to offer Home Readers

My response to an editorial in Science News by editor Tom Siegfried about scientists quest for dark matter and dark energy (the dark side), To editors@sciencenews.org I will agree with you that the vast majority of scientists feel completely baffled in their search for dark matter and dark energy. Let me state that the reason that they are so baffled is that they have missed the big picture, the OBVIOUS clues, {the 800 pound gorilla in the room}, the only logical and simple alternative which I intend to present here. I do agree with scientists that gravity is too weak and feeble to provide enough of a contribution to the total forces experienced inside galaxy arms.  I disagree that dark matter is the logical choice.  No experiment ever done on earth has given a clear, consistent, or compelling example of dark matter. My favorite Sherlock Holmes quote (not necessarily exact) is: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” Since we HAVE eliminated both gravity and dark matter, perhaps science should consider what has not been eliminated: electromagnetic energy (electricity and magnetic fields).  Without spending additional billions to search for answers first, let us look for existing evidence of such electric (or magnetic) fields entirely within our cosmic back yard, (the solar system). Note that every planet in our solar system, except for Mercury, and Pluto {which may not now even be a planet anymore} shows auroral activity upon occasions.  Even a few moons of Jupiter and Saturn have been seen to display auroras.  There is the “inconvenient matter” of a cyclic 5,000,000...

The most Outrageous Anomaly Known to Science

The most Outrageous Anomaly Known to Science, (but kind-of swept under the rug, as too embarrassing for “Science” to admit to). It is the opinion of the C-R theory that the phenomenon known as The Double-Negative Ionization of All the Hydrogen Atoms in Our Sun’s Photosphere” is the most outrageous anomaly known to science.  It is easily explained by the C-R theory, but virtually no other theories seem to rejoice over this inconvenient “fact”. Stated simply, in our sun’s photosphere (the “yellow” part we see that glows, or puts out all of the light we see), almost ALL of the hydrogen atoms there are saturated with as many electrons as that hydrogen atom can handle.  Every hydrogen atom there has two EACH electrons, despite the fact that the photosphere is heated-to over 6,000° C or almost 10,000° F.  On earth, for the hydrogen gas, each atom would rid itself of even a single electron, and be positively ionized at those temperatures.  (Like a neon sign ionizes, then glows, after high voltage is applied.) The only simple answer must be that there are way too many available electrons there, in that region, far more than conventional theory can account for.  Far more than thermonuclear fusion (hydrogen to helium conversion) could provide. At normal room temperatures on earth, hydrogen atoms would pair-up, and each one would mutually share their single electron with another hydrogen atom, to exist as an H2 molecule.  If we heated-up this gas, it would positively ionize, and let at least one electron escape. Only the C-R theory says that our sun is powered by a small Black-Hole...

The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle

W.I.R.D.A.R.D. = When In Rome, Do As Romans Do, or literally translated into action, act like a “local”, and not like an outsider or a tourist, or a stranger.  When referring to light, and lightspeed, the C-R theory suspects that light, {arriving to earth from elsewhere in the universe, somewhere with a “different” speed-of-light there}, instantly adapts itself to “local” conditions, (speed-wise).  Whenever it either passes through something clear, like glass or plastic, or reflects off-of a shiny surface, like a mirror, before we measure it, those surfaces are fixed, or non-moving with respect to us.  This action restores, or re-normalizes light’s speed, before we attempt to measure lightspeed. (mostly by an interferometer)   Therefore, we will never actually see or detect any changes in the speed-of-light, coming-in from elsewhere, as much because of the way we try to measure the speed, than that light, (when it is elsewhere) never changes. The following letter refers to my most recent thoughts on the topic, a topic I have not recently covered in my blogs. NOTE: The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle, by it’s very nature, is virtually non-testable “locally”, if light always adapts to “local” conditions.  If light, from “elsewhere”, adapts differently after leaving “there”, without going there, and measuring light “there”, could we find any difference?  What I am trying to do is arrive at a real-world method to account-for: Why light “here” always measures at lightspeed, even though it may differ when it is elsewhere. The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle is that light is the ultimate “wimp” (or conformer, yielder).  Something “chameleon-like”, or “octopus-like”, exists in the nature of light, where it instantly adapts to local conditions, and never appears...

Celebration of 20,000th Visitor and More

First off, I would like to celebrate the C-R theory’s 20,000th visitor.  I cheated just a little bit to get that honor, myself.  I checked-in when it was at 19,998, and I refreshed a couple times within the next five minutes thereafter.  There were many initial months that the site ran without a counter, so the real number of visitors is higher. I would like to thank those thousands who have visited, and I would especially like to thank those who have repeatedly re-visited.  I hope that I can aid more of you home readers in your quest for improved understanding. I realize the difficulty some have with accepting these new ideas, and I am continually trying to re-present these unique ideas in new, fresh ways, with new “spin”, and with new references to items in the headlines. I also apologize that there is no pre-agreed-upon language to fully express some of these new concepts.  They are just too new to have a common reference understood and accepted by all readers. I would like to revise my blog strategy, and discuss why I believe that the C-R theory is relevant, and why it might be worth your while to read it carefully.  The C-R theory is my humble attempt to communicate a really NEW way of thinking about gravity, it’s true cause, and to share something important which I believe has been completely missed almost everywhere else. The C-R theory is something-like “informed speculation”, rather than a strict, by-the-book, attempt at theory.  I have been trying to share that our entire universe is quite probably the inside of a...

April-Fooling Science Twice: How “Science” got “April-fooled” Twice , and remains so until this day.

The first area where the C-R theory claims that vast majority of earth’s scientistshave been completely  “April-fooled”  is both by the nature of the red-shift observed in this universe, and the expected outcomes based on those false conclusions that thisuniverse is expanding, much less accelerating in it’s expansion. The C-R theory does agree that we do observe red-shifts which doseem to increase with increasing distance.  Where the C-R theory disagreesstrongly with the majority is in the cause of those red-shifts.  Whilethe difference COULD just be one of a philosophy, it is very important to notethat the REAL answer is there, “hidden in plain sight” for anyone to see.  Allone needs is the simple explanation to understand what IS ACTUALLY seen. The key to understanding the cause of the red-shifts is the BLUE-shifts seen inthe direction of “The Great Attractor”.  The C-R theory claims that if oneunderstands “The Great Attractor”, this WILL explain the true cause of the red-shifts. NOTE: If the universe WAS expanding, one should ONLY see red-shifts increasingin ALL directions with distance.  That is, in fact, ALMOSTwhat we DO see, but not quite!!!  What we do see is, in one direction, thereare blue-shifts whichincrease up to a location termed “The Great Attractor”.  Conventional theoryclaims that this “Great Attractor” has such a mass located there, that itattracts ALL nearby matter, including the earth and matter in towards it’svicinity.  The small problem with this is that by all measurements made,there is insufficient mass detected in this area to accomplish this amount ofattraction.  Additionally, there is NO back attraction visible, where thematter BEHIND the “Great Attractor” is ALSO measured as...

A comment on Hypography Forum discussing: How Does Gravity escape from a black hole?

I decided to post one more blog, pre-April-Fool’s-Day, if possible.  One of the topics I’d like to cover would be a forum I noticed on Hypography discussing, How Does Gravity Escape a (conventional) black hole?   It was one of the few contemporary forums that recently has taken-up that topic.  I believe the C-R theory has answered that question to my satisfaction, and I did not see anyone at that forum bring-up the C-R theory point-of-view.  If I had added my comments, they would have started on the last page, so I figure, since this is MY blog, I can put the strong points much more prominently on the first page (of the new blog). Just over 30 years ago, I was also pondering the question, “How does gravity emanate from a black hole?”, and I went over most of the conventional ideas, including properties of gravitons that might allow gravity to be felt.  None of those options though neatly answered the point, without seeming to also violate Conservation of Energy. Eventually, I was led to a totally new answer, one never discussed or visualized elsewhere, that seems to give a good accounting for: How can gravity (still) emanate from a {C-R theory “brand-name”} Black-Hole C-R? Part of the NEW insight is that, if gravity DOES NOT escape from a Black-Hole, but instead, curvature  “modulates” or makes changes-to (affects) the properties of spacetime containing that same matter, this “New Trick” ALLOWS gravity to maintain constancy, to exert it’s full effect, WITHOUT requiring ANY radiated emissions at all, much less needing anything travelling at above the speed-of-light. If we imagine a...

The C-R Theory Responds

Within the last week, I have responded to a magazine article and responded to an interesting question from a reader.  That suggests a title for this blog: C-R Theory responses.  I responded to an article in the March, 2010 issue of Astronomy by David J.  Eicher, about the 5 big questions in astronomy.  The second question in that article, What is Dark Matter? (that part, starting on page 46)   My response-in probably exceeded the length of his comments on the likely nature of dark matter.  In brief, science has detected that the velocities of stars rotating around the centers of most galaxies do not fall-off with outlying distance, as measured from the center, [as they should if the inverse-square force of gravity is the sole explanation for the velocity of stars in the galaxy’s arms]. Mainstream science has speculated that there is a mysterious “new” substance called dark matter, which provides the missing mass to explain the much higher than expected velocities. Here below is the (slightly modified) full response to that article.  [Even if the response does get published in an upcoming issue, it is likely to be greatly shortened or truncated, to fit-in the letter section.]  Below is the C-R theory’s response: Dear Sirs, In response to your article in the March 2010 issue of Astronomy, by David J.  Eicher, starting on page 45 about Astronomy’s 5 Big (unanswered) Questions, specifically the section starting on page 46, about dark matter, I would like to make the following suggestion: perhaps it would be better for “science” to spend more time considering the other 50% of the known (inverse-square)...

Another Theory Arrives at Same Conclusions by Different Means

There are a few new items to comment upon.  From a few different sources, but within the same week, I did find out about another person, Nassim Haramein, with a theory that comes to some of the same conclusions as the C-R theory in several cases.  He used different methods.  Many of his other ideas are probably less mainstream, and he is still coming from a more conventional starting point.  Here is a link to some of his videos.  There are many differences, too.  I do like that he tries to use fractal-like similarity into the scales of the universe, although I would differ that this is successful.  Most of the vastly smaller reference-frames like atoms and quarks are not as “identical” in the smaller sizes as they are similar.  I have not gone all through his videos, and some of them are very long. He does believe that atoms behave like (conventional) miniature black holes.  This is one clear difference area.  The C-R theory does not allow the knowledge of the inner electrical charge to leak-out or couple-out from inside the Black-Hole C-R.  Additionally, I doubt that the atom’s nucleus would have enough room inside to host a fully functional Active Zone C-R, required to establish the Black-Hole C-R in the first place, much less even to tolerate or accommodate a functional Neutral Zone C-R. Nonetheless, I would invite the curious to consider his ideas, and see if anything “resonates” with you.  I would not be surprised if there was not at least some truth and some good information that could be incorporated.  If I could “sell him”...

Conclusion of the last blog entry, “Is there a connection between some or ALL of these known phenomena and the C-R theory?”

Reader Note: Both the December issues of Discover Magazine, and Scientific American have Black holes (generic ones) as the subject on the front cover.  From the C-R theory standpoint, the Scientific American article, Portrait of a Black Hole, (page 42), is much more useful, more specific, and much longer, and I’ll briefly cover why, here. If you, the home-reader, take nothing else away from the Scientific American article, it does contain one real gem, rarely found in articles accessible to the general public, or stated so succinctly.  A Black-HoleC-R “releases” energy from matter some 20 times as efficiently as fusion!!!!! Couple this fact with the idea that the long-run, mass-consumption by the Black-Hole C-R is not “poisoned” by enriched helium content, as the hydrogen for fusion would be. The C-R Theory All Star Lineup [Your cranial-lightbulbs (as in: Aha!, I understand it now!!) should turn on (especially after I suggest it to you, here]  Why not use that more efficient energy mechanism to power ALL (or almost all) of the objects seen emitting energy in this universe?  After all, if I had a car engine that got 400 miles per gallon from the same fuel that with the standard engine got only 20 miles per gallon, I would be a fool indeed if I didn’t use the more efficient method first (if the “cost” of obtaining that energy from a fixed-amount of fuel was relatively equal). Additionally, the article also mentions that after the infalling-mass surrenders tremendous energy by falling nearer-to a Black-Hole C-R, “something” jets-out from the poles at 99.98% of lightspeed, in the OPPOSITE direction.  Conventional science...

Is there a connection between some or ALL of these known phenomena and the C-R theory?

IS there any connection between the C-R theory type processes and Some or All of these Known Phenomenon listed below? (Do any or all of these items hint that at least some parts of the C-R theory are Right?)  Can the C-R theory make a real contribution to understanding the operation of our real world, just as it is seen? I would like to list some of the recognized items that are known-about, which may help to demonstrate a possible connection or link to the C-R theory.  It is conceivable that some of these are not connected in any way, but that is why I want to list many to give you, the home reader, some ideas of where the C-R theory may help-out our common understanding, in recognizing some common threads not seen as relevant (or interlinked) by mainstream science.  I intentionally left the list LARGE, both to be noticed, and to be overwhelming in it’s claims for C-R theory’s relevance.  I took out other items, like speculations and some predictions, and saved them for the next part (continuation) of this blog.  Part II can contribute even more items I’ve noticed (but not known phenomena) to the C-R theory’s claims. I have divided the below-listed items into sections, grouped by: Earth, Sun (and vicinity), Space, Black-Holes C-R, supernova, and an end section, followed by some comments.  More will follow next week, including more ideas to tie-in the items listed below, and list why they are relevant to the C-R theory. Statement: A brief, basic scenario for the C-R theory’s suggested pathway: – A Black-Hole C-R at the center...

A Second Follow-up to the original follow-up on the Experiment in Gravity Anyone can do at Home

Although I said a lot in my last blog, and elsewhere, about the C-R theory’s unique outlook on a “new” experiment on gravity that anyone can do at home, I feel that the masses will ignore or disregard the experiment as not really “new” or “relevant”, but just a play on the semantics, or a clever twist on our perception, and a “lie” as to its applicability. Let me state that this is a fundamental new insight, and really “throws a monkey wrench” into the commonly held outlook.  Yet another national magazine has included the “drop clear-through the earth” in 42 minutes scenario in another magazine article this month, and a certain host of Nova on PBS repeated the segment on jumping down into a hollowed shaft through the earth, again.  In the cartooned scenario, he accelerated until he reached the center of the earth, then decelerated until he reached the top of the shaft on the other side of the earth. At least one responder wrote in to YouTube that they couldn’t take seriously any theory that didn’t see gravity Newton’s way, and they probably aren’t alone.  Let me re-describe the situation, as I understand it, and as I notice it, from a “different” perspective, and try to show why the “new” idea isn’t nearly as stupid as conventional theory assumes. My favorite “curvature analogy” is the orange juice squeezer, the old-fashioned kind, that has a lower half-ball, where the orange sits, and a hollowed-round cup, which sits over the orange, mounted to a metal lever (from the pre-plastic days).  Usually I would “half” the orange, and just...

An Experiment of Gravity that Anyone can do at Home

In the short video experiment on gravity, there were many fine points I was not able to cover within the short time-limit YouTube allows.  This will cover those points, and cover items I have covered inside the C-R theory, but not yet in a blog form. In a formal experiment, one would present a goal or an objective.  We hope to ascertain the normal behavior of a tossed ball.  NOTE: Whenever we toss a ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature, above the surface of the earth, the ball always returns, of it’s own accord, back into lesser curvature. Although not mentioned in the experiment, the difference slightly above the earth is approximately 1 part in 1016 per meter either real-time energy gain, or gain of real-time.   The C-R theory contends that this true energy gain is the real reason we experience gravity, and it is where the energy goes when we lift-up an item into a lesser gravitational field.  A GPS satellite lifted 20,200 Km. will gain about 45 usec per day from sitting in a lesser gravitational field (it also loses about 7 usec per day from the increased speed, “falling” in earth’s gravitational field at orbital velocity).  The net time-gain is about 38.5 usec per day. In our experiment, we did not ask about time gains or trying to measure the interval difference.  That would have been pointless, anyway, as the net difference was way too minuscule to measure.  All we wished to establish was that, if the ball was tossed into lesser gravitational curvature, it would always return, of it’s own accord, back into a...

Fishtank Physics

Blog for the day, or new item, Fishtank Physics: Why thermodynamics, the study of a glorified fishtank (with accurate measurements, and accounting for energy losses) is the ultimate, “Think-inside-the-box” type-of thinking. [Unimaginative] To this, the C-R theory says, no wonder they won’t appreciate, understand or conceive-of the ideas needed to restore entropy created exclusively within the C-R theory .  Only by exploiting the properties of the Neutral Zone C-R can physics someday hope to see how this universe restores entropy, and why our universe hasn’t “run out-of steam”, so to speak. (There could be other ways, too, but none nearly as simple, and easy to understand.) With the understanding of the work-energy contained within steam, and the desire to recover or use ALL of the practical amount, or as much as was physically possible to extract, the science of thermodynamics was born. Eventually, after extensive trials and tests, they realized that there was a limit to the practical amount of work that could be extracted from any amount of energy, and that depended upon the temperature differences (or energy concentrations) between the two ends .  The bigger the difference, the more that could be extracted, the lesser the difference, the less that could be practically achieved (even if the energy WAS abundant, if it was too concentrated, i.e., couldn’t be “moved” to an area of lesser temperatures) energy could not be efficiently extracted. Eventually, scientists arrived at the “second law” of thermodynamics, that energy always goes downhill, or entropy (the measure of disorder within a system) increases with time .  That the C-R theory has proposed to overcome that...

New Videos and More

Many new items to blog about.  I’d like to tout some of the newer videos that have recently come on-line. There should be 22 or more episodes, titles, or segments available for free viewing on YouTube.  A brand-new segment on The Great Attractor should be available now.  It concerns one of the real KEYS to understanding the C-R theory view.  Conventional theory does not understand the significance of “The Great Attractor”. After understanding gravitational curvature, the presence of “The Great Attractor” is the most important item in the universe to the Comedy-Recycling theory.  If we did not see something like “The Great Attractor”, the C-R theory might not have come into existence.  By the C-R theory, the Great Attractor IS the center of this universe, no doubts about it.  We KNOW this because the center of this universe MUST BE the most blue-shifted place we can find.  This area IS running-faster than anywhere else, and for a very good reason. (see diagram) By the C-R theory, every Black-Hole C-R has an exactly-critical inner-area, fully closed-off, which the C-R theory calls the Active Zone C-R. This is not quite as coincidental as it sounds, because one is necessary to contain enough mass, at the critical density, to close-off space(-time), and form the Black-Hole C-R. This takes the form of a “placeholder”, or something to reference the value of time by.  It is akin to the zeros (or nothings) that assign value to 10 or 100 or 1,000, or any higher whole number multiple of ten.  The Active Zone C-R of a Black-Hole C-R could be likened to a (missing) hole...

Viewer Comments

A recent viewer of the video, “Disproving the World’s Greatest Experts on Gravity” commented, “As long as the ball is not at the centre of the earth there’s still more mass on one side than on the other side.  Gravity will decrease but even 0.00001 G still means acceleration.” The C-R Theory’s Author and segment host’s reply: Thank you for writing in and posting your reply.  I would agree, from the conventional theory (Newtonian) way of thinking, your response would be correct, and would be the standard way of thinking.  If you carefully check out the C-R theory ideas, what I tried to show is that real gravity may have other ideas, and Nature has “laid her cards on the table, face-up, and showed everyone her hand.” to speak metaphorically. Note that Einstein claimed that curvature was the cause of gravity.  The C-R theory is trying to take that point and emphasize it, and believe it, and demonstrate what that might truly mean.  I would agree that, by conventional thinking (what IS written in textbooks, what IS taught in class), the curvature idea has been dismissed, missed, and disrespected.  What the C-R theory is attempting to do is show anyone willing to listen, is that Nature may not always work like the textbooks think, or expect. The point of the experiment is to show that, BY THE EXPERIMENT, the ball, starting-from the surface of the earth, when thrown into LESSER curvature (in this case, UP into the air), ALWAYS returns back into GREATER gravitational curvature. *(The exception would be, if you could toss the ball up with greater-than either...

Technical details from some of the C-R theory video shoots

Although it does not have anything to do with the overall C-R theory, I would like to include a few technical details for the interested viewer-reader, about the shooting of the segments for the C-R theory. The first actual segment which we shot was the simple experiment, Disproving the World’s Greatest Experts on Gravity.  We shot that outside of the Gallery Place main entrance, on a cold stone bench on a cold winter’s day in February.  Although I was happy with the video quality, the sound lacked the clarity I had hoped-for.  Some segments not used on the included clip used the built-in mike on the Sony camcorder, and it was not suitable for downtown use.  The low frequency bus rumble and wind noise and overall traffic noise was objectionable even though the traffic was 10-20 times further from the camera than I was.  The included segment used a Calrad shotgun mike about 3 feet away from me (out of camera range).  The sound was better, but the traffic and wind noise was still much greater than I cared for. Segments filmed in a park a few weeks later used the same shotgun mike even closer, and placed on the ground (on a short gooseneck mike stand), aimed up at me (at least 35 degrees away from city traffic a half-block behind me).  The occasional fire-engine’s, sirens, and bus and truck rumble, and traffic horns were noticeable, but not dominating.  I did enable a frequency-rolloff filter afterwards in the editing studio, where I cut everything below 300 Hz and removed highs above 5 Khz.  (I use this for almost...

A Closed Universe is our home

In the popular media, it is always said that our universe is open, expanding (with expanding expansion), has no center and no edge.  The C-R theory would dispute that strongly, and in this blog I would like to argue the case, and present the C-R theory side. Let me start with the basics.  If you understand gravitational curvature, it must superimpose a preferred reference frame over a closed universe.  There will be minimum curvature (bending, warping, shape-influencing pulling) at the center (actually zero from the surrounding mass, plus a base amount, if any, added from any possible larger external surroundings (unknown to us, but quite possible). For any spherical item, a light bulb, a basketball, a planet, a ping-pong ball, a bowling ball, we are not surprised that it would have a center, and an outer edge roughly the same distance from the center in all directions.  Such is also the case for our universe. If one can imagine any structure as large as our universe, it does not take all that high of a density to completely close off that structure.  It does take a lot of matter, however, with the size being so enormous that all human-based comparisons seem inadequate.  Nonetheless, the C-R theory states that our universe appears almost exactly filled with enough matter to almost close-off our universe most simply because that IS now the case, and always has been so. The red-shifts observed everywhere in this universe are almost entirely because of a gravitational effect.  It is known that more intense gravity (such as that on the surface of this earth) runs slower than...

The Big Nut

Tuesday, April 7th , myself and my webmaster shot some video during our lunchtimes by a sculpture featuring a giant blue nut (a hexagonal, metal one) and what some C-R theory critics would say, was a lesser one (i.e., this author) in front of the National Building Museum in Washington DC.  The segment concerned a Comedy-Recycling Theory (brand name) Black-Hole C-R and it’s properties, and the many differences between the brand-name Black-Hole C-R and a standard black hole (conventional theory). The first major difference, is that a conventional theory black hole is assumed to collapse into a singularity, a mathematically difficult to understand (and theoretically impossible to understand), infinitely dense, minimally small (assumed to be around a Planck length, or 10-42 Meter in length), with not the slightest degree of proof.  For this reason, and more, the C-R theory claims that a standard black hole is strictly imaginary, or a creative construct, as-in: a work of fiction. On the other hand, the Comedy-Recycling Theory claims that no Black-Hole C-R ever collapses into a singularity, because of the newly-understood nature of the cause of gravity.  Every C-R theory (brand name) Black-Hole C-R has two distinct parts, an inner Active Zone C-R {the shaded gray} and an outer portion or Neutral Zone C-R {depicted in orange}. The innermost part, the Active Zone C-R has the following properties.  It is always completely closed-off, and always exactly critical, with exactly enough matter, at a sufficient density, to close-off, or close-up that part of space.  It is not coincidental, but merely the starting requirement to initially create a Black-Hole C-R.  Once this volume is...

Dark Energy Hunt

I was looking at the newest issue of Scientific American, and their cover story for the April 2009 issue is about Dark Energy (“Does Dark Energy Really Exist?“).  Of course, their viewpoint is that the search is real, but they have some scientists who proposed a rather preposterous solution, that if earth and vicinity is smack-dab in the middle of a huge void, the non-expansion in our area would mitigate our intense search for evidence of Dark Matter and Dark Energy. From a C-R theory point-of-view, the search for Dark Matter and Dark Energy is especially fruitless, since the C-R theory maintains that our universe is not now expanding, never has, and never will!!!  Our universe does nicely show an increasing red-shift in all directions, with the anomaly (in the conventional view) of the Great Attractor. The C-R theory claims that the Great Attractor not only is NOT attracting anything, but that, on the contrary, it is the “most-uphill (like)” point in our entire universe.  It runs faster (is blueshifted the most), as compared to us, and everywhere further-out, even slower than us. The C-R theory claims that this is directly derived from observations of the properties of various phenomenon seen in our universe.  We live in a CLOSED universe.  The inside of this closed universe is exactly filled with enough matter to completely close-off the universe.  This is NOT a co-incidence, but merely a statement of fact.  After our universe acquired enough mass, at a sufficient density, to close it off, it has remained that way ever since. (It is no more coincidental than when you go to...

An Experiment for Viewers of the Feb. 17th Nova Program on PBS

I would like to reference an upcoming program on Nova on PBS, Feb 17th. After the main program on 4 winged dinosaurs, the host, Neil Degrasse Tyson does a segment where he imagines jumping down a tunnel from the surface of the earth, passing through the center of the earth, then re-emerging on the other side. While his cautions about the hazards from this tunnel in the real world are valid, such as the very high temperature with depth and air pressure (building-up with depth as one descended), the central point of the thought experiment is false {although it is the “Standard Book Answer”, as far as almost all textbooks are concerned.} I would like to propose a simple experiment that your PBS home viewers can safely do in the privacy of their own living rooms (for under $1.00) which will likely suggest that the answer given in that end segment is false, or should at least generate a reasonable and healthy scientific controversy. The Experiment Take any reasonable sized ball, and toss it safely into the air, not so hard as to injure anyone, touch the ceiling, or create unsafe conditions for nearby bystanders. Toss the ball high enough that it leaves your hands, and see what happens. Always throw the ball so that you can catch it again. (This is not a necessity for the experiment, but a great convenience for repetition of the experiment, quickly, without chasing the ball over and over again.) Notice that whenever you (or home viewers) toss the ball up into the air, you are always sending the ball into LESSER gravitational...

The Video

Just this last weekend, myself and my web-master were shooting some video segments for the C-R theory, about an experiment you readers can do at home, in the privacy of your living room (or anywhere else), for under $1.00, which will disprove what some of the world’s greatest experts on gravity believe.  I hope some of that footage gets available very soon.  We also filmed a visual “joke”, where I stood with my head (apparently) aflame, saying “Another bright idea from the Comedy-Recycling theory”.  We also have a blooper segment, where I am saying those lines, and a bus or truck drives behind me, and blocks off the flame-illusion.  It should be a short attention grabber.  I might also add that no photographers were burned in the making of the video, and kids, don’t try this at home.  Attach a link to a still photo (or two) here.  These photos are not composited or photo-shopped, although they may be cropped, reduced in size or resolution, or color-corrected or enhanced.  That “bright idea” line may be added to the segment at the end, to add a little levity, and create an anticipation of humor to follow in additional segments. The first segments we shot at the entrance to Gallery Place, right up the stairs by the bucking bronco statue.  The first few segments we shot had high wind noise from the camcorder’s internal mike, and one of the later segments had a fire-truck siren to contend with.  We also got a brief shot of a DC fire engine responding to a call, which could be added right after the bright...

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-Hole C-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-Hole C-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...

Continuation of blog (January 2, 2009)

In the last blog, I briefly challenged the notion of the expansion of the universe, one of the key ideas that the Big Bang is derived from.  A newer theory, the Big Bounce, does away with the singularity by allowing an older universe to collapse first, nearly into a singularity, then re-emerge as the universe we know-of as the one caused by the Big Bang, hyperinflation-phase and all.  (Thereby, it keeps the other 4 anomalies from the Big Bang intact.) When Penzias and Wilson found the 2.7 K background microwave in the early 1960’s, cosmologists rejoiced that they had finally found some evidence for the “start” of the universe.  For such an extravagant claim, common science accepted it with barely a whimper. With the C-R theory’s claim that this universe is NOT expanding, but fixed in size, the 2.7 K looms large in many people’s minds as something which deserves some comments.  I would be happy to relay that the C-R theory is not at all troubled by the 2.7 K microwave radiation-energy, coming evenly from all directions.  The C-R theory considers this as an ongoing process, similar to the roar one hears from a near-by waterfall.  Of course, this microwave “roar” is not nearby, and has no preferred direction.  Within a few millionths of a degree, it is uniform in all directions. The C-R theory considers this 2.7 K as the “averaged-out” and expanded remnants of ALL of the novae, supernovae, quasars, gamma-ray bursts (GRB’s) and the like.  When mentioning the expanded-out part, it is important to note that this universe is still closed-off, and fixed in size,...

Happy New Year

I would like to wish all C-R theory readers a happy new year for 2009. I hope that at least a few of you can accept some or all of the new ideas expressed by the theory. I was going to explain my thoughts on the making of the C-R theory. I would like to explain my take on gravitational curvature. Gravitational curvature can be thought of something like a shape-bending or capacity changing. Consider a balloon. Blow-up the balloon nearly full, then hold-on to the stem, but do not tie it off.  If you let some or all of the air out of the balloon, this somewhat approximates how I envision curvature changing the capacity of matter to store “gravitational” energy. I also imagine a sponge lodged between two flat metal plates, with 4 screws adjusting the width of the plates between full capacity and decreasing to no capacity. I do not know whether or not the capacity change caused by curvature is strictly dimensional, adding sub-dimensional loops smoothly, or fractal, adding smaller sub-dimensions in incremental {digital} jumps, with a possible non-continuous nature, something like a Sirpinski fractal. Whichever method nature chooses, I imagine the “path-length” increases for light (electromagnetic energy) when a slow-down occurs. This path-length change is the real cause of the red-shifts we detect in this universe. The way to tell for certain that this IS the case, is the appearance of “The Great Attractor”. If the red-shift is CAUSED by an expanding universe, there should be red-shifts everywhere. While it is true that there are red-shifts in every direction, there is also “The Great...

Letter to the Editor of the New Scientist Magazine

A response to the article, “Did our cosmos exist before the big bang?” in the December issue of “New Scientist” magazine. Dear Sirs, In response to your article (Dec. 13-19, 2008, page #32) on the Recycled Universe, and your joy over the elimination of one of the problems with the Big Bang (starting solely from a singularity), I would offer an alternative “new” theory that eliminates ALL of the problems with the Big Bang. I would like to tout The Comedy-Recycling Theory (of the Entire Known Universe) as an even better alternative. The real problems with understanding the Big Bang consist of two major errors science has bought into, virtually without challenge or discussion. The first is the acceptance of the expansion of the universe. Hubble did find increasing red-shift with increasing distances of galaxies starting in the late 1920’s. The small problem was, this was not EVER reconciled with the EXCEPTION, the Great Attractor, where blue-shifts increase, up to a point. The only way to reconcile these is to accept that most of the redshifts and blueshifts observed are gravity-based (curvature caused). Essentially, our universe is a CLOSED universe, with a “preferred reference frame” mandatorily superimposed over it. The blueshifted area runs faster then here on earth, or more correctly, we are farther from the center, and we are slowed-down more than the center. Further outside our location, red-shifts continue to increase, all the way out to the outer edge. Notice, this means that, contrary to the Theory of Relativity’s claims, there is not like here, timewise. The “Great Attractor” runs faster than earth, and everywhere further out from...
6,449 visits to this page.