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 sensenonsense tradition, that gives the fable’s dialog it’s endearing charm.

New Answer: A raven has an ink black quill, whereas a writing desk has an “ink-black” well.

Explanation, in an audio-visual sense: 1. In audio, they’re almost identical [answers], sound-wise, but, 2. In a visual sense, simultaneously, the answers are nothing alike (or nonsense).

NOTE: If you say, out loud [and very rapidly, repeating to yourself each answer at least 3 times]: ink black quill, “ink-black” well, ink black quill, … you might start to sense the similarity of the answers, to your ear, audio-wise.

To appreciate this new {and better?} answer, imagine two of your favorite argumentative characters from the story above, debating the answers, one (listening) claiming: Hear hear, they’re almost identical, and the other adamantly arguing (visually): See, they’re nothing alike.

The C-R theory’s favorite “overSTuffed” Top Ten list of Puns (and Jokes?)

[refer to the month’s & year’s blog listed within the brackets, to find the original pun]

1. A Black-Hole C-R is a mass-sieve body. [Many possible link locations]

2. “Who are you gonna believe, Me [as in: the Theory of Relativity], or your own two eyes?” {a quote from Chico Marx, who almost never got the funny or witty lines} – (Author’s Italics Added to denote the applicability to relativity) — [April, 2012 Blog] and

[Jan. 2011 blog]

3. de Sky’s the Limit, – or – “Disguise the Limit”; We Cannot Tell the Difference

[Sept. 2011 blog]

4. What *LIES at the center of a Black-Hole C-R? : –

[the singularity being the chief *LIE] [Oct. 2012 blog]

5. The Cat’s in the bag (of tricks), – or – What Fur? —

Rubbing Science the Wrong Way [June, 2013 blog]

6. Alight at the end of the Funnel [Oct. 2012 blog]

7. Ohm, Ohm on the Range, – or – Cooking with Electricity —

A Short(ing) Story   [June, 2013 blog] & [Sept. 2011 blog]

8. It’s now twice as good!! Our Double-Standard Answer:

Why gravity is felt outside of a Black-Hole C-R, but not heat, light, electrical charge, and spin.  [Mar. 2011 blog]

9. A Cosmic Raise?   [Nov. 2012 blog]

10. A Simple Funnel Diagram, – or – (pour performance?)   [Nov. 2012 blog]

11. Look Ma!! No Branes (or A No Brainer)   [May 2014 blog]

12. Even though we live in the Digital age, Mainstream Science is showing “The Wrong Digit” to the C-R theory [June, 2013 blog]

13. EXPAND Your KNOWLEDGE, yes, but not the SIZE-of YOUR UNIVERSE  [Sept. 2011 blog]

14. Gravity is kind-of like Seniority, i.e., no time, no pull  [Oct. 2012 blog]

15. (re)-WRITING a WRONG  [Sept. 2011 blog]

16. Should we just let the rules slide?   [Oct. 2012 blog]

17. Entropy or not Entropy, THAT is the Question? :  [Oct. 2012 blog]

18. Choosing the right “FOOL” [i.e., me] for the right job   [Oct. 2012 blog]

19. {According to} Relativity: If “c” ain’t FIXED, it’s broken.   [Dec. 2012 – Jan. 2013 blog]

20. If a stopped clock is right twice a day, how does it know?

21. If a clock could talk: What would it tell time? (Chose one)

a: You said the same thing yesterday.

b. That wasn’t what you told me a minute ago!!!

c. You may be right, but it still ticks me off.

d. I’d like a second’s opinion.

22. Honor and Off(er?) – or – (An) Off(er) You Can’t Refuse —- and

It cannot go offer than OFF   [Mar. 2011 blog]

23. Suggesting where the errors LIE, to the LAYpersons   [Mar. 2011 blog]


Open forum question: Is it more likely that something is wrong with our universe, or that the earth-science that has been used to understand our universe is wrong? – Build upon that.


[Our new special word-term for Pun opportunities: Our opportunity to create new and relevant puns for the C-R theory, recognizing special situations, such as:

Kicking-Out any one Supermassive Black-Hole C-R from some duo-trio groupings = the new pun: high velocity “sails”-force — [may kick-out the one with the most mass to lose].

Insert them into headlines EVERYWHERE, if they are relevant.

Punnops are also our best opportunities to create or derive new puns to include somewhere within the C-R theory’s headlines.

Punnop: For all practical purposes, every Neutral Zone C-R is only a temporary storage container, or holding-state of affairs.  They are NEVER designed as a permanent condition!!!!!  (need a good pun here)

Punnop: Are ALL stars powered by Black-Holes C-R?

Even white dwarf and brown dwarf stars?  An All Star line-up

Punnop: Add-up all the lightning-bolt amperage totals from one average day’s thunderstorms = total current? Yearly and daily total #’s.

Pun: Lightning: the load –  or  –  Strike-up the band, … bolting, … re:volting

NEW PUN: You will reap what you sow (from a Black-Hole’s C-R inside), after you rip what you sew(-up) inside.  {By ripping-open the Neutral Zone C-R}   [July 2010]

The Big Bang’s Reigning Beauty Queen: Miss Understanding

A Special Invitation:

A C-R theory goal for 2015: We would like to invite mainstream science to hold *a Permanent “Name Retirement Party” for the term: Event Horizon, then, may it R.I.P. forever more, never to mislead anyone again.  [or, ironically fitting: *an Event Horizon for the use of the scientific term, Event Horizon, as a final event, if you will]

New Items for April, 2015

On the cover of the April, 2015 issue of Scientific American, there is an explanation of a new concept, trying to explain the dilemma to science, of whether or not information is lost inside a conventional black hole, and whether quantum mechanics, or general relativity is wrong.

This is a problem that the C-R theory has already solved, 30 years ago, although mainstream science has not accepted that solution. I will comment upon the article, then give the C-R theory response.

A Firewall is Missing –

Part of conventional wisdom’s thinking about conventional black holes originally thought that a singularity resided at the center of each one.  With some newly revised thinking, the cover article, Burning Rings of Fire, by Joseph Polchinski, starting on page 36, describes some new possibilities, where immediately inside the event horizon* [* a term the C-R theory claims will misguide reader’s thinking, and mislead them], this article’s author now speculates lies a very hot firewall.

Let me quote part of one sentence from the beginning of this article, (from page 38), “… if enough mass comes together, gravity’s pull will cause it to start collapsing. Nothing can stop this process until all the mass is compressed into a single point…”

A C-R theory response:

These sentences are where the mistakes above were made. It is only when enough mass comes together, that the new region [now the inside part] closes-off.  This creates at least one initial Schwarzschild radius, which establishes the Black-Hole’s C-R outer perimeter.  The text should read, gravity’s “pull” ceases immediately after any mass crosses this Schwarzschild radius.  [“Gravity” loses it’s handles, to influence matter, once mass traverses across this barrier.  Having surrendered 100%, or ALL gravitational energy-potential already, mass cannot lose any more energy.]

Once matter enters this region, gravitationally, this mass is then already at it’s lowest-possible gravitational potential, and cannot go any lower.  Further inward, crossing a Schwarzschild radius, proceeding back into real-time, again, matter there is always worth more energy, gaining more energy, with values increasing all the way “down*” into the uncurved center, where the energy-value is at a maximum.  Matter at “lowest-energy” cannot be allowed inside, without picking-up more energy.  It cannot be permitted to do so, until the escape velocity decreases to “below ‘c’ level”.

Unlike a conventional black hole, curvature is MAXIMUM at the Schwarzschild radius, and decreases to zero [or minimum] at the center.  This solution “Fixes” the problem of a probable collapse, and stabilizes the Black-Hole’s C-R inside portions.

Technically, the Black-Hole C-R portion only exists at the Schwarzschild radius, for a new Black-Hole C-R, or between an inner and outer Schwarzschild radius, once the Black-Hole C-R starts filling-up, by eating mass.  Between the Schwarzschild radii, the escape velocity is above the speed-of-light.  Both inside and outside of the Black-Hole C-R, in normal space, the escape velocity is always below “c”.

Back to the Scientific American article: The unsolved problem with this new approach is that what lies further inside, past the Schwarzschild radius, is still just as unknown, and un-approachable, as the previous singularity.  At least this new approach is one small step in the right direction, but still a giant leap short of the C-R theory’s total, more-comprehensive, system-wide insights.

While the C-R theory does not believe this view is correct, it is progress away from the obsessive thinking, both about the singularity, and the “cult” of the event horizon.  That is a welcome change, hoping that with this break from convention, the door is opened a bit, to consider the “more reasonable”, full-treatment scenario involving the C-R theory’s ideas.

I do strongly recommend discarding any use of the idea of the event horizon, and instead fully concentrate on ALL OF the roles performed or fulfilled by the Schwarzschild radius.  It is this barrier’s special properties that block communication from inside leaking out, to the outside.  To truly unlock the key to understanding this chief part of the Black-Hole C-R, the Schwarzschild radius needs to be the prime focus of one’s thinking.  Without this key, nothing conventional theory realizes is sufficient to overcome the world’s false assumptions.

I would still recommend reading the article, then compare the net aftermath of the actions of this new firewall concept covered, to those expected-results, written-about in the C-R theory, and in my blogs.  Note: Other than solving the dilemma of the singularity, little else is gained in a practical testability of the firewell concept.

NEW for 2015:

Definition: A Black-Hole C-R is a temporary “storage container” for mass, designed to self destruct.

In the C-R theory approach, the ongoing reports of high currents, stray electrical charges, energetic electrons, multiple-ionized protons, energetic cosmic rays, polarized radiation, recur in almost every new report, in ways conventional theory has never wanted or expected.  The C-R theory is unique in demanding high levels of just this type-of phenomena going on, everywhere we look, in every direction, in almost every system we observe!!  When will science learn to recognize these persistent patterns, and connect the dots, interlinking all of these phenomena to ongoing, everyday processes?

A key difference in the C-R theory is that our Black-Holes C-R never face an information paradox.  From before a Black-Hole C-R comes into existence, until the final catastrophic energy and matter release, everything that enters the Black-Hole C-R is cared-for, planned to help in it’s own, eventual recovery, and freshly restored.

I will not cover the full recovery scenario here, but it is available from past blogs, or from the theory itself.

In contrast to the conventional thinking, the C-R theory concept is supported by at least 100 types of known phenomenon, with a recognizable set of distinct, specific, and unique patterns, producing major effects superimposed over most of the items on the full list.  Most of those items are NOT wanted or expected by conventional science, and there is no common thread linking them to a specific type of plan.

Mainstream science has overlooked hundreds of electrically-based phenomena, looking with their blinders-on, and NOT SEEING the obvious, or what should have been obvious, to even the most-casual observer.  Ignoring the simplest answer, that contributions from electromagnetic forces do explain ALL of the discrepancies in these observations, they look for dark matter and dark energy, never finding any evidence for either of them.

[If the phenomena & evidence-list is ready, post it here and link to it.]

From NASA’s New MAVEN [Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN]:

You can add these two new observations from NASA’s MAVEN, to the list of phenomena supporting a C-R theory like universe.  There is a bright new Mars Aurora, seen in ultraviolet, spanning the Northern hemisphere just noticed for the first time.  An article about the ultraviolet Aurora quoted Arnauld Stiepen, a team member from the University of Colorado saying: “The electrons producing it must be really energetic.”  The same article also stated that the source of those energetic electrons appears to be our sun.*  [*Thank you for these gifts to the C-R theory. From our C-R Management]

(the above excerpted from a NASA press release, dated 03-18-2015)


The C-R theory claims that Aurora-like activity is evidence for ample quantities of stray (excess) electrical charges seen on most planets, and even on several moons, causing thunderstorms, lightning, and conventional auroras.

There is also a dust belt, some 150-300 km. (93-190 miles) above Mars surface, with dust particles suspended in Mars very light atmosphere, about 1% of earth’s available air pressure.  NOTE: The C-R theory suspects that the dust levitation is likely due to excess static-electrical charges, or negative ions, providing most of the support for levitating the dust particles, rather than due to the kinetic energy of motion from tenuous air particles.

Welcome to the new Magnetospheric MultiScale mission [MMS]

We welcome the launch of 4 identical satellites, dedicated to tracking magnetic reconnection, and investigating powerful bursts of charged particles ejected from the sun, on their way towards earth.  These satellites should make discoveries connected to earth’s auroras, both Northern and Southern lights. The C-R theory expects great “gifts” from these observations, when they are released.

This new set of 4 satellites is dedicated to studying this phenomena, orbiting through earth’s magnetosphere, rather than attempting to study it in a lab on earth.  The C-R theory expects many great gifts from the observations and findings from this mission.

To The Serious Side of Science, but with Some Jokes and Puns Included

I am dedicating the serious part of this blog to all those scientists who have been April fooled by “Nature” about the true nature of our universe.  The C-R theory claims that science has gotten the properties of our universe horribly wrong, since at least 1929.

When Edwin Hubble detected the increasing red-shifts at a distance for far-away galaxies, science called upon popular theories that speculated that our universe was expanding, to explain-away the increasing red-shifts, instead of first reaching a much simpler conclusion, that the redshifts are created by the properties, because we live in a Closed Universe.

HINT: The Closed-Universe explanation also naturally covers the simultaneous blueshifts observed in the direction towards “The Great Attractor”, too.  Unless our universe is BOTH expanding and collapsing at the same time, both observations need the simplest explanation.

Atomic Clocks Stay “Ticked-off” Whenever They Are Stuck-in Greater Gravity –

(kind-of like) Tap-Dancing on Wet Molasses – [a sticky subject]

Recently, scientists raised an atomic clock by 33 cm. and noticed that it ran slightly faster than another clock which remained at the original level.  In that particular case, it was the decreasing level of gravity that increased the clocking rate of the raised clock.

Although in that particular case, raising the atomic clock above earth’s surface, into a slightly weaker gravitational field allowed the raised clock to run slightly faster, it was consistent with the C-R theory’s expectation that a clock will continue to run slower in a stronger gravitational field, but gain time when lifted into slightly lesser curvature.  [Unless that particular 33 cm stretch of this universe was the only place in the universe where that would be the case.]

What the C-R theory expects is that, inside any closed universe, at the center will be the least curvature, and the least slowed-down {unimpeded, fastest-clocking} region.  As one proceeds further out, the clocking rate will slow down in proportion to the overall collective gravitational curvature.  At the outermost locations of that universe, time would stop, as the escape velocity reached the speed of light.

If the above scenario were the case, we would expect that, from earth’s location, one would see increasing redshifts in all galaxies residing further out, increasing with distance.  [We do see that.] We would also see increasing blue shifts in one direction [towards The Great Attractor], as objects there clocked faster than here, on earth.  [We also do see something like that.]

Notice, in the above description, one sees in the real world the exact appearance that the Closed-Universe type scenario would display.   In such a closed universe, the center region would always be exactly filled-up, at a sufficient density to close-off the universe.  Mass at every location would have a balanced energy-availability to maintain it’s internal position, and nothing could collapse inward, towards the more-active center, without gaining additional energy.  Everything further out, residing in greater curvature, would lack the required energy to be allowed-in, to a faster-clocking environment.

What is most interesting about that scenario is, no anomalies are needed to explain the existing observations.  Our universe would be stable, and not expanding, but still fit all observations.

From what I know, no other theory explains our universe in this particularly simple manner.  I will admit, it is not taught like that, and not covered in textbooks, either.  What is nice is that no anomalies are needed for it to agree with what we already see.

Compared to the many major anomalies needed by the Big Bang, for the universe to start to make sense, the C-R theory universe is far simpler to explain.  Getting people to accept it has proved troublesome, as it is not-yet taken seriously enough by most home-readers.

Each new blog is part of showing-off the overall simplifications that the C-R theory represents.

Another part of the C-R theory simplification is: There is no need for dark matter or dark energy to explain why galaxies arms hold together. Instead, consider the following scenario:

Inverse-Square Dancing, — or,

Back in My Gal{axy}’s Arms again – or

A New Roll-Model – [pun intended]

No Red-Tape Here (to interfere)

Give us some Static; Cling to the Past

I will mention that the C-R theory claims that enormous electrical imbalances, seen everywhere, are created by natural processes.  [I have covered those in other blogs.]  This leaves tremendous quantities of electrical currents available to drive, shape, twist, and hold-together, or torque the galaxy’s arm structure.  Remember that, atom for atom, the electrical force is 1040th times stronger* than the atom to atom gravitational force.  This is why simply pulling a few cm. of Scotch® tape from a roll can create enough static-electrical charge to attract loose items, like dust, ashes, or loose paper scraps towards it, overcoming in a few seconds the “total gravitational pull” from the “entire mass of the earth”, over short distances.

If one realizes the level of electrical charge imbalances available, those forces should be entirely sufficient to shape, drive, torque, and hold together the galaxy arms, without the arms shredding-apart, and to allow the arms to hold their shape even at the outermost portions of galaxies, without their angular velocities dropping off with distance.

A major simplification can be had by clearing up one misunderstanding astronomers have.  Astronomers assumed that only the force of gravity can have any influence on a galaxy-wide scale.  That missed-assumption has sent mainstream science on a hopeless quest, searching in vain for non-existent dark matter.

*(That means that the hydrogen atom’s electric charge’s attraction is: 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10× 10 times stronger than an individual hydrogen’s atom’s feeble gravitational pull toward another hydrogen atom, all other things being equal.  I thought, maybe written out, it would make more of an impression on those jaded readers who skimmed-over that exponential statistic above, without fully realizing the overwhelming magnitude of the superiority, force-wise.)

Even so, mainstream science ignores this fact, when looking for OBVIOUS candidates when normal gravity falls short of their expectations, in galaxy arms.  Perhaps, one of you home-readers can inform astronomers why their search for dark matter, and dark energy, should be ended.  Maybe this hint above will be helpful to them, to suggest where else to look, force-wise!!!)

[Saving those] Explosive Handling Charges

Alfred Nobel made his fortune by safely “stabilizing” nitroglycerine when he invented dynamite. It was much safer to handle, and saved many miner’s lives in the process. The Neutral Zone C-R is to “safe-handling and storage” of this group of explosively-dangerous electrical charges, similar to what dynamite is to nitroglycerine.

The Merger-Murder Model (for attempted Black-Hole C-R mergers) – or

Pooling our logic: a suggested big new “splash” of humor, or –

a retro-pun [said with an accent] – Are You Just “Pooling” our Leg?

Imagine two small, plastic, “kiddie-type” swimming pools, each one exactly filled to capacity, bulging to the last drop, with scalding hot water.  Now imagine that one or both of them get the idea to merge with the other, or that they try to combine their contents, and make one even larger-sized swimming pool, as a result.  In their misguided attempt to merge, the inconvenient fact here is that each pool is already at it’s full capacity, and neither one can expand enough to take-in even one-more-drop of the other pool’s contents.  [Because of the uniqueness of the circumstances, as we have set-it-up, only a colossal failure could emerge from the attempt.]

{Note: This anecdote is not an exact analogy for the proposed Black-Hole C-R merger, but it is intended to illustrate some newly-thought-of possibilities for what one of the dilemmas of a Black-Hole’s C-R merger plans may be.  Do not take the above example too literally.}

New joke-op headline suggestion: The Biggest Loser?

A REALLY STARTLING NEW IDEA: During an encounter, the larger of the two or three supermassive Black-Holes C-R may actually have the MOST UNSTABLE storage-conditions just inside, and it may have accumulated inside, the most MASS TO LOSE.  Thus, it may be more likely to become “The Biggest Loser” during the encounter, and not become “The Champion-Eater”, as Newton would certainly expect.  The Biggest and Baddest Mass could be the net loser, and not the BIGGEST bully, – like taking-away candy from babies.

Situation HINT: Think of the encounter of the world’s fattest man, Augustus P. Creosote, dining piggishly in the restaurant, in Monty Python’s movie: The Meaning of Life, after receiving the thin, after-dinner mint.  A very similar condition, indeed, deciding which Black-Hole C-R in the group will explode first.  HINT: The one that gorged the most.

Immediately Inside a Neutral Zone C-R

HINT: Think like the parachutist, i.e. (punfully): and jump out-of-the-plane [or, the plain].

An additional pun is 0 = i “c” { pronounced, “Oh, I see!!”} — :

We describe this “nothing” state as light travelling or resonating in an “imaginary dimension”  (pointing to the mathematical direction specified by i [the square root of -1], at “c”, while also spinning at the speed-of-light), a dimension one cannot visit when we are living in real-time.  Then think of light somehow “spinning or resonating” at right angles, perpendicular to all 3 of our standard 3 dimensions, in an imaginary direction “i“, out of the plain, rather than simply standing still, or frozen in place.  [July 2010]

Bring a Conclusion to this April Fool’s Day Blog for 2015:

I always strive to invite newcomers to this web site to visit more than once, because there is so much new information here, that is not available elsewhere.  I try to find new ways to present the case for the C-R theory, and show off it’s advantages vs. the standard theories, like the Big Bang.

Unfortunately, unless one is willing to at least temporarily suspend their current beliefs, it is unlikely that one could accept these new ideas.  This slows-up the likely acceptance of these new ideas, and makes it difficult to overcome years of indoctrination with the very limited resources available here.

There is a continual stream of new phenomena uncovered or announced, that seems to highlight the type of things that only the C-R theory expects.  Please consult earlier blogs for numerous highlights of these items. I have tried to make it simple for the home reader to detect this pattern, and evaluate whether or not the C-R theory is valid in aiding recognition of special conditions.

Dedicated to the “Fooled” Fools

Ultimately, this April Fool’s Day blog has been an attempt to celebrate the fooling of science since at least 1929, and to provide a yearly helping of humor, in keeping with the Comedy-Recycling theory’s name.  Thank you for the opportunity to state the case for the C-R theory, and mention that there are no real negatives known to me, phenomena where the C-R theory would be knocked-out, invalidated, or eliminated.

If I can, I would request that you keep an open mind, and give the C-R theory an honest evaluation, to see if it can work for you, personally.  If you are too indoctrinated, it is unlikely that you will seriously try to understand anything presented on this web site, you will just discard any ideas here and you will go to other, more conventional web-sites.  [You probably departed long before reaching this section.]

I would welcome honest questions, and if there are points of confusion, I will try to clear-up those, too.  I still come-up with new ideas on a regular basis, and I still find new items I had not anticipated.  I want to see informed home-readers attempt to find items missed by me, and give them the opportunity to add to the thinking.

While I have had some good natured fun with this blog, I am not intentionally trying to fool anyone [on the science part, at least].  I do admit that my thinking is quite different from conventional thinking, and I expect to be regarded as a fool for some of my thoughts.  That is a price I am so far, willing to pay, for the advances I believe I now understand.

I accept my role of being: The right “Fool” for the right job, acting as a “tool” for nature. I have a contribution to make, if that is what is needed to break-up the logjam regarding conventional black holes, vs. my new thinking on Black-Holes C-R.  I still respect those individuals who cannot make the leap to accept these new ideas.  Although I might laugh at their wrong ideas, and the dilemmas they face, I do not intend to blame or ridicule their sincere attempts to understand science.  I am trying to point out the irony in their logic, and show where their errors LIE.

Thank you again for visiting.  Your suggestions are appreciated.  If you would like me to cover certain topics, please use the response form to communicate with me.

Last edited, March 31, 2015

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, to allow our home-readers to explore their ideas and check out their papers and presentations. www.worldnpa.org

Some of the edited videos from last year’s November conference have already been posted on line, and more should follow.

NOTE: This does not imply any endorsement by the C-R theory of other members claims, but, it affords an opportunity for our home readers to explore additional new ideas not embraced by mainstream science.  I have found some of the presentations quite interesting, and some impressive results which seem reasonable to me.  There are some I would disagree with, also, but I am glad to have heard them out, and to have the opportunity to evaluate their findings from a C-R theory viewpoint.

Announcing a Special April Fool’s Day Blog

or, Celebrating those who have remained fooled since at least 1929

Before proceeding further, I would like to announce that there should be a special blog released just before April Fool’s Day, 2015, dedicated to the world’s scientists who have remained fooled (by nature) for these many years.  The C-R theory will have extensive comments on this claim in that blog.  I will also plan to post a top ten list of favorite jokes and puns, harvested from the blogs and the main theory.

In the view of the C-R theory, the world’s scientists have been fooled by nature since at least 1929, but they do not know, or acknowledge this.  The next blog will cover the claim much more fully.

Claims for “Proof” of the Hyperinflation Phase of the Big Bang were retracted

The most recent news is that scientists retracted their claim, from last year, that they found the “smoking gun” proof for hyperinflation at the beginning of the Big Bang as the 1 part in 10,000,000 of polarization of the 2.7K background radiation, something I took issue with in the last blog.  I did not expect to be “vindicated” quite so soon, and I am certain that the C-R theory’s objections to it were not the cause of it’s being retracted, but it is nice that something the C-R theory is concerned with becomes rectified so soon after the blog was published.

Otherwise, mainstream science is prepared to spend over two billion dollars to build and to maintain the LIGO, space-based interferometer, to look for gravity waves hypothesized to be produced when (generic) black holes collide and eat one another.  The sad thing about this is, by the C-R theory, this can never happen, as a Black-Hole C-R can never eat another Black-Hole C-R, for simple reasons that only the C-R theory can now understand.  [By Newtonian reasoning, the C-R theory ideas would not make sense.]

Since gravity already is maximum directly inside a Black-Hole C-R, the energy-value of matter already eaten is also at it’s lowest possible energy value, gravitationally.  No further energy-release will be gained even if the entire Black-Hole C-R could be eaten again.

I would be highly disappointed if the LIGO device actually measured intense gravity waves as expected by standard theories, but I would accept it, and move-on from there.  While it is possible that a few neutron stars being eaten might actually put out some small gravitational waves, there should be no earth-shaking measurements recorded due to Black-Holes C-R merging.  I simply want the C-R theory to be on record, officially, predicting null results, ahead-of-time.

By the C-R theory, the mass inside a Black-Hole C-R is already, gravitationally, at the lowest possible energy level, something akin to absolute zero, temperature-wise, but with respect to gravity.  ADMISSION: There may be a bit of wiggle room here, in my new thinking, as all Black-Holes C-R are not exactly alike, depending upon their location within this universe.  Whether this location-position difference is enough to allow any Black-Hole C-R to physically dine upon another Black-Hole C-R will remain doubtful, but I cannot totally rule it out, as I ponder over every possible permutation of potential encounters.

No Black-Hole C-R Cannibalism

It should be noted that, even if a Black-Hole C-R could dine upon another Black-Hole C-R, the energy output available will be orders of magnitude lesser than what would be expected from the standard Newtonian formula, where it is the two masses and the distance between them that determines the energy potential available to be released.  NOTE: Nature has firmly scolded me that, if we stupid humans ASSUME that gravity works all the way from minimum curvature, up to maximum curvature, then back down to minimum (or zero) curvature again, gravity feels NO COMPUNCTION to oblige us, and simply does what it was designed to do.  It only works from lesser curvature to greater curvature, and when that is finished, it is done, kaput, spent-out, and takes a permanent break from affecting mass.

This idea about gravity only working while curvature is increasing is a direct recycling of the idea nature used a century ago to avoid the collapse into another singularity, at the Ultraviolet Catastrophe.  This was when Maxwell’s equations predicted that every electron should continually radiate away energy of motion, until the electron collapsed into the proton.  It took a complete revolution in thinking and understanding, realizing that physics required electrons to radiate-away their energy in quantized packets of energy, called photons, which prevented that disaster.

The Comedy-Recycling theory simply learned that lesson, then re-applied it to the exact-same type of situational-dilemma, gravity-wise, to once-again prevent any possibility of forming a singularity.  This solution relies upon nature to already have solved the problem, in a practical manner, because nature is not slavishly relying upon limited and inflexible equations for understanding.  NOTE: The C-R theory is not saying that most equations are not useful, but over-reliance upon them, vs. a simple understanding of the situation, is likely to create confusion when the equation, and not the simplicity, is allowed to dominate the thinking.

While I cannot prove that the solution is valid, in an academic court-of-law, the simple principle of Occams’ razor should triumph yet again.

What I hope to accomplish is help others to understand the solution, to allow them to apply more rigorous math skills and find a solution that actually addresses the situation, or at least, more-correctly fits the situation.  I am reasonably certain that almost no-one has considered gravity from a curvature-based reasoning.  What is most interesting is, gravity, technically, is no longer a force, or the CAUSE, but what we think of as {the force of} gravity is actually the end result, or the aftermath of the action of curvature upon matter.

If you think of a car wreck, where two automobiles attempt to simultaneously occupy the same volume of space, the wreck is the RESULT of this action, and not the cause.  If you can understand it this way, you might now understand why gravity is so difficult to resolve and to combine with the other 3 forces.  The old assumption was (and still IS): All forces were united as one at the beginning, but they slowly broke-away, as they were “frozen-into” different states or forms, as the universe expanded and cooled-down.  {But still at temperatures far above what we would consider cool.}

A Four=Gone Conclusion — or,  Forces, Our Hand

What the C-R theory now understands is, this is flawed reasoning, and gravity, as a force, is irreconcilable with the other forces, because it is totally different.  This difference is critical in allowing gravity to be sensed outside of the Black-Hole C-R, whereas all of the 3 other forces remain trapped inside, unable to bridge the gap and couple-out to express themselves.

A key point of new insight, available only from the C-R theory, might also help ones to better understand some aspects of How Gravity Works.  Without presenting all of the justification here, let me reveal what I have learned about gravity.  I was discussing with my webmaster about the properties of older seatbelts from around the mid ‘60’s, where the seatbelts continually ratcheted-in, and would not release again unless the seatbelt was almost fully retracted, then it was allowed to re-extend again, and repeat the cycle.

What is important to understand is: the influence of gravity is something like that ratcheting action, and only increases while the local curvature increases.  Once a local maximum value is reached, gravity is done, and it will not continue to operate further, decreasing in value as one attempts to proceed further downward.  This is because curvature actually causes gravity, by affecting (influencing) the storage-ability of matter.  Once gravity has taken a mass into the maximum curvature available, it’s job is totally done.

I am familiar with the standard Newtonian formula, taught almost universally now, as the proper way to understand gravity.  Unfortunately, gravity has shown me, by experiment, that is NOT how gravity works, it was merely ASSUMED to do so.

I will state that, above ground, the Newtonian formula works well.  Where it will fail, humanity has not yet been able to travel there, and might not ever be able to do so.

(Other locations will be available to test that hypothesis in the long-term future, but not that we could actually test it, for years to come.)  [I have covered this in other, earlier blogs, so I’ll just state it, for now.]

If you can understand this concept, many exciting things become available to you to solve riddles about this universe, well hidden, yet easily solvable.  The entire nature of our universe has been mis-understood and that explains a lot of the things that science remains baffled-by.

A brief statement would be, a proper understanding of gravity will explain why a closed universe is likely, and no singularity is ever possible.  Where would a ball fall to if it could be dropped down into a hollow shaft, down into the earth, and why the exact spot would change cyclically, with time.

A more accurate statement would be: gravity is the result of the action of curvature upon matter, and NOT the cause of matter’s motion.  To avoid too much confusion, for the most part, the C-R theory will go along with the ingrained notion of gravity causing motion, but in reality, science understands it backwards.  [That is a very good reason to explain why science gets so many concepts so wrong, BECAUSE it is starting-off with a false premise.]

More about these ideas will be presented in the next blog, which should be available either before, or by April 1, 2015.

Jerry Reynard  March 14, 2015


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 A Beacon from the Big Bang, starting on page 58, by Lawrence M. Krauss, discusses the view that the earlier discovery of the polarized portion of the 2.7K background radiation originated from the action of gravitational waves in the first billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a second after the Big Bang.  Mr. Krauss suggests that gravitational waves generated during that action, acting on the (then) more energetic emissions were what polarized this portion of the (now) 2.7K, instead of either electrical fields or magnetic fields, in some combination.

Also covered in that article was the mention that, to solve two problems with the Big Bang, in 1980, Alan Guth came up with hyperinflation.  Ironically, the C-R theory had already solved those same two problems in 1979, without needing to add-in hyperinflation, by simply re-understanding our universe from a newer, and better point-of-view.  [Admittedly, the C-R theory was not available for public distribution at that time. In the late ‘90’s, it was on-line, on the internet, but even then it was laughed-at by scientists and theoreticians, {sometimes intentionally}].

The solution to the first problem was: Our universe appears to be almost filled-up, because it is exactly filled-up, now, and it always has been, and it always will be so.  It is not a coincidence that our universe appears so close to being filled-up, because it is the actual reality.

The second problem solved was: why the universe looks so similar in all directions.  Our universe has been stable, and everything inside it has always been in full communication with all other volumes, and all inside parts have been at equilibrium with all other parts, forever.  Just as one might expect the inside of a basketball to be at equilibrium everywhere, so is our universe. (just on a much bigger scale)

Why Not Consider A Simpler Idea? [than the Big Bang …]

Briefly: We see all objects in our universe as they are, at their actual, real-time rate.  Elsewhere can be at a different-clocking rates, depending on their locations.  When science makes the {criminal} mistake of CORRECTING the observed data, THEN drawing conclusions from the corrected observations, NO WONDER those results do not make sense!!! {HINT: Is there anywhere else in science where this correcting of the observed data would be acceptable?}

The universe-observer’s problem was that they ASSUMED that time everywhere else was exactly the same as it is for us, here on earth [i.e., isotropic], because the theory of relativity said so.  If they had simply observed the data, and just noticed that everywhere more distant was slowed-down, but also, in one location, everything was clocking faster [nearer to the “Great Attractor”], which is also our universe’s center, the problems would have disappeared.

HINT: The “Great Attractor” is NOT attracting anything, but it is a region where the clocks would be less slowed-down [running faster] than we are, here on earth.  NOTE: The ironic, but incorrect name is too well known to change it now, just like Ben Franklin’s positive and negative charges were guessed-at wrongly.  We are simply stuck with the wrong choice.

Why our closed universe does not collapse has been covered before in earlier blogs, and is also explained in the C-R theory, so it will not be covered in this particular blog right now.

Another interesting cover article I would like to comment on was: [Why] Everything you know about black holes might be WRONG! by Bob Berman, starting on page 22 of the October, 2014 Astronomy magazine.  The article does a good job of summarizing the prevailing views on [conventional] Black Holes, even mentions the theoretical time-stoppage at the Schwarzschild radius, then adds-in more recent speculations about a hot firewall located immediately inside the [one and only] Schwarzschild radius.  Interestingly, the C-R theory comes to an entirely opposite conclusion involving the time-stoppage.

The C-R theory view is that, immediately inside the [outer] Schwarzschild radius, the conditions there force everything to behave in a time-neutral fashion, where all speed-of-light based phenomenon are shut-down, turned-off, and inactivated!!  Since the escape velocity is greater than the speed-of-light in this particular region (and ONLY in this region), the C-R theory created [actually, just recognized] the Neutral Zone C-R.

NOTE: Nature went to a great deal of trouble to gather together exactly the critical amount of mass, at a sufficient density, to close off the portion further inside, leaving that region fully-functioning under conditions already well understood, *except why it does not collapse into a singularity.  [*The C-R theory does understand just that, in a new way, and tries to explain that to anyone and everyone coming to this web-site. (but not right now, here in this blog)]  The C-R theory claims to understand why, how, and what it does for the universe, using the known properties of matter.

The article above also tries to explain conventional black holes using insights based upon the *event horizon, [*which the C-R theory fully rejects], that results in speculations that are both useless and misleading.  If you are willing to shift to an alternative, a curvature-based understanding, the C-R theory teaches how every Black-Hole C-R becomes the most astonishing tool, with features too grand, and too useful for Nature to pass up.  The human-friendliness of the switch-over relates how simple connections, totally missed by the mainstream scientists, explains the logic of what many phenomena already noticed are doing.  The universe, as we see it, should then start to make more “common” sense to you, but, only if you can accept the C-R theory. Try it on a trial basis, for free, and even if you accept it, still pay nothing.

Yet another recent cover article, on The Black Hole at the Beginning of Time, by 3 authors, starting on page 36, in the August, 2014 issue of Scientific American, discusses the first instant of this universe, from the Big Bang, and asks if it came from a holographic mirage [image?], projected from inside, from another multi-dimensional part of the universe?  The article does have some interesting discussions of several key ideas. It mentions that science has no idea what caused, or started the inflation process [if it did occur].  Even more troubling would be, what caused inflation to stop, at “the just right” time, rather than keep inflating into near-nothingness, forever?  There are also 5 key parameters of the universe mentioned, which affect our understanding.

I would invite any home-reader to compare the ideas from this article with those of the C-R theory, as to overall simplicity, and naturalness, to our human values of logic and order.

Popping the Big Bang’s Bubble, or: Deflating the Hype, or:

Not Celebrating the Proof of the Big Bang’s 2.7K background Echo

I read an article a bit back, that it was over 50 years ago, in March, 1964, that Wilson and Penzias were credited with discovering the 2.7K background radiation, which was attributed (by science) as the virtually unchallenged proof of the Big Bang.

In the May blog, I covered good reasons why the C-R theory believes that the 2.7K background radiation has absolutely nothing to do with the Big Bang.  It simply results from natural (ongoing) processes in this universe, averaging-out and smoothing-over the echoes of happenings, over time, while “bouncing around”, while slowing-down at the farthest distances possible, inside our closed universe. Just slightly afterward, an article celebrating the 50th anniversary of the discovery of the Big Bang’s remnant was published.

I would like to remind our many home-readers that understanding just this one point: that there are many reasons to doubt the Big Bang, can go a long way towards explaining some of the key differences in the simple C-R theory.  Our universe is infinitely old, closed-off, continually refreshed, perfectly stable [not expanding or accelerating in it’s expansion], and can never collapse.

Just recently, mainstream science has challenged the idea from earlier in this year, that was initially reported special polarization patterns as the smoking gun proof of the first few moments from the Big Bang.  There are critics who now suspect that the polarization-modulation pattern claimed to be part of the 2.7K [about 1 part in 10,000,000 of the total 2.7K] instead originates from localized [nearby] polarization of portions of our Milky Way.

The C-R theory does not believe in any Big Bang, and rejects that the 2.7K has anything to do with any Big Bang. The C-R theory would agree that there should be extensive ionizations almost everywhere in space, and inside the Milky Way.

Overall, the C-R theory is better-off if no part of the Big Bang’s hypothesis has been proved, but more of the ideas are debunked, in any part.  The C-R theory is happier that the claims of nature supporting the Big Bang, and finalizing the mainstream’s claims for the 2.7K’s relevance, and celebrating the 50 years since it’s discovery have been taken-down a couple of pegs in the popular media.

There are still many things I would like to explain, and differences in the C-R theory vs. the Big Bang is one area where the explanations are far simpler and there are fewer “anomalies” needed.  An area that I have not covered in a while in a blog is the possible methods that nature might use to allow the dimensionality of space (or of spacetime) to “modulate” the energy content of matter.

A New Path [or Dimension] to (Fractal) Thinking

I currently suspect that the process of gravitational curvature modulating* matter [*or changing the path-length that a lightbeam would take to travel through the more-curved space] is more “fractal-like”, than any purely analog or digital solutions, but even combinations of all 3 concepts might be used by nature.  The simplest clue to notice was the observation that after two atomic clocks had been synchronized, then one was elevated 33 cm., (or, one third of a meter) above the other.  I read that the result was that the elevated clock ran faster by a rate of about ninety billionths of a second spread-out over a 79 year period, resulting from that small change in the gravitational field.

While it is possible that the 33 cm where this was measured is unique, is the only part of the entire universe where this observed time slowdown/speed-up occurs, it is more likely that the same type of slowdown also occurs wherever gravity is more intense, and a speed-up occurs where gravity is lesser.  The real question is: WHY?

There are several possibilities.  Either the “speed-of-light” changes in some slight manner, or the dimensionality (the path) travelled becomes longer/shorter, and effectively changes the amount of time [or the frequency] needed for “energy-at-resonance” to resonate.  This could also involve either parallel side-branching, or where the path becomes wider or narrower, maybe even “snakier or zig-zaggier”.  There is also a possibility that the path light takes could be changed by adding or subtracting something like a corkscrew-loop spiral, adding-in oscillating loops, stacked or overlapped along the straight-path.   The “dimensionality” partially increases either the diameter of the spiral path, or the number of stacked-on loops.  Any of these modulation methods might help to explain some of the reasons that the energy in the slightly-less-curved path that the elevated atomic clock also took slightly less time to travel, at the higher level, to count what used to be the same time interval (in seconds) for both of the stationary clocks.

Mainstream science has maintained that this speed-change of light does not occur, by their definition.  Since they stipulate [or, pretend] that nothing differs, they have no good way to explain what happens in that situation.  The concept of a minimum energy location, where energy is minimum, is related to the above situation.  HINT: The minimum-energy concept is also a recycled [new], re-understanding of the same-type situation science faced years ago, when a predicted collapse into a singularity was faced by every hydrogen atom at the “Ultraviolet Catastrophe”.

To make a “burro” out of ones-self, if one does not know the facts (about burrowing)

Please consider this wisely: Whenever, and wherever gravity is stronger, the local time-rate slows down.  The C-R theory posits that, in the vicinity of the Core Mantle Boundary, this will be where “the local time rate” will run the slowest on earth.  Once gravity gets matter to this local, “minimum-energy location”, gravity completely loses the ability to do more, and cannot “pull” matter downward, closer to the center, as the Newtonian understanding claims, if the C-R theory is correct.

This is because, gravity has already lowered the energy of the mass as much as is possible, at [approximately] the CMB.  Because the strength of gravity decreases going downward, the energy of the mass would need to INCREASE, or clock-faster, and thereby BE more energetic, to go lower.  Unlike the Newtonian idea, past this point, we would therefore have to ADD-IN, or provide more energy, to give more energy back to the mass, to enable it to “FALL” downwards.  If not, the mass would hover there, rather than be able to gain additional energy* while falling again, back into lesser curvature, decreasing to minimum.

NOTE: *The additional energy Newtonian ideas expect to gain would not be there. All of the available energy had already been gained, once the mass arrived at the CMB.  Nature cannot and will not provide that same energy again, for free. It must be added, additionally, from some external source having excess energy.  With no new energy, the mass will not be allowed to “fall” down, back into a higher energy location.

As of yet, there has been no practical way to “simply” burrow-down, and go there, to test this hypothesis.  We poor humans are as yet unable to even get to the middle of earth’s thin crust, much less the bottom, some 22-47 km., or 14-29 miles down.  After that, we would have to go much further down, through the mantle, to the outer portion of the core, at the crushing depths around 2886 km., or 1,800 miles down.  The temperatures down there, at that depth, are now expected to be between 3,000-3,800 ºC, or 5,432-6,872 ºF, across a thin band about 200 km. thick. Further down, at the core’s liquid-solid border, the temperature runs 6,000 ºC, or 10,832 ºF, somewhat hotter than the sun’s surface.  The properties down that far make metals squishy and oozy, if not liquid, or like soft plastic, rather than solid and stable.

Gee: Why the C-R theory says “there is no ‘G’, or gravitational constant”.

OBSERVATION: Whenever the gravitational constant has been measured, regardless how carefully it has been measured, the results have differed with each other beyond the allowable potential measurement errors.  There recently was a new study, measuring “g” by a new method, which yet again placed a value of “g” beyond the maximum allowable error bounds measured by other methods.

The C-R theory would claim that the main reason that this occurs is because there actually is NO gravitational constant.  I would allow that “something like” a gravitational constant sometimes occurs, but this will not always be the case.  Read the following to learn WHY.

An extremely important point realized by the C-R theory is that the “Newtonian” view of the cause of gravity is ALMOST right, but, in-essence, wrong.  Where the Newtonian concept has been most successful is in measuring earth’s gravity attracting objects down, towards the earth.

Where the concept should fail miserably, (by the C-R theory’s reasoning), will be after a mass has already been attracted to the most curved, or lowest-energy region.  The attraction downward will not continue, as the “strength-of gravity” fades back down to minimum [zero] again.

The Basic C-R Theory Discovery* – [*Supported by an Experiment you can do]

The C-R theory posits that “gravity” only has the ability to cause a mass to fall from a region of minimum (or lesser) gravitational curvature, to the place where gravitational curvature becomes the local maximum.  After this has happened, it makes NO SENSE to continue again to fall from the local maximum, back down into the same value originally started-from, then to an even lower value of curvature again, to 0 or minimum.

Why would “gravity” not just cut out the “Middleman”?

If gravity would do something THIS STUPID, [to fall from some starting level of curvature, proceed to the greatest curvature, then to continue falling from maximum, there, down to the same-starting value, then to continue falling to an even lesser curvature all the way down to the minimum value at earth’s center], it should have just cut out the “middleman”, {=maximum curvature}, and fallen straight-up, directly into the sky, towards the original minimum curvature located overhead, in the first place.  (From a time-slowdown point-of-view, there should be NO difference in the faster time rate located directly above us, and that same minimum rate, down far below earth’s surface.)

Of course, as anyone can observe, we never see this happening, from the surface of the earth.  Will it ever be observed from some special location elsewhere?  [No!!]  Since this NEVER happens, something* rules that option out. [*Newtonians would never consider anything except falling down, as the formula suggests, all the way, straight to earth’s center as rational or reasonable.]

The C-R theory maintains that, additional energy must be added back in to that mass, before it can again proceed “to fall” back into higher-energy conditions, whether they are “up” or “down”.  If the energy is still available, let us say, as kinetic energy, or speed, from falling, that energy could suffice to allow the mass to continue to travel downward, but at the cost of that “already gained kinetic energy [speed]”, but not as an additional gain.  We can only gain that kinetic energy ONCE, not gain it once, when falling to the maximum, then gain that same energy yet again, when falling to minimum.

HINT: Imagine an entrance fee paid for a ticket for admission to a movie or sporting event.  Would you expect to recover 100% of those same funds, after leaving the event?  Of course not.  Would it be fair to charge a ticket price for admission, and charge the same price yet again, afterward, to exit?

“G” can WAIT, for a WEIGHT Gain [or – Pun: Weight for the answer]

Another, easier to imagine scenario could also help to illustrate this point.  Most of earth’s densest mass is concentrated at depths way down below our crust, deep into earth’s interior.  So much so that, if we were to deliberately grind-up the earth’s dense interior, and thoroughly homogenize our planet’s density, averaging it out by mixing in earth’s light surface mass, blending everything until the entire earth’s internal mass was redistributed equally, and everywhere throughout our planet had a consistent 5.5 g/cm3 density, everyone standing on earth’s surface would then weigh some 30-40% more, if they stepped on a scale afterward.  This appalling situation would happen, even without our personal mass or our density changing.  This is just one example of those “hidden” features of life on earth that is rarely, if ever, considered.

This simple “fact” is one very good reason that our standard “G” cannot be correct, “as it is measured”, but even if we could re-compute it with the “corrected” default value, that would not change the lack of continuing acceleration after the maximum value had been reached, right at the top of earth’s surface.  NOTE: It is conceivable that we might be able to test this scenario on some rubble-pile of a nearby asteroid within a few decades, instead of waiting for another available uninhabited planet, then grinding and mixing it into a controlled, uniform density.

This is just one simple experiment which could be done [preferably on someone else’s home planet], that should clearly show that the “standard” gravitational constant listed in the books must be wrong, or at least, seriously re-adjusted.

Additionally, the C-R theory predicts that, even after this grinding-mixing was done, no mass would just drop down a hole anymore*.  That mass would hover around the top opening of any hole, no matter how deep.  Even if that object was thrown down into any sized hole, from the surface, the object would “float”, or return back to the top, where the curvature was the greatest.  NOTE: This behavior does not currently happen, on earth, because earth’s density is not uniform all the way through.

*[I do not expect the average home reader to accept that above hypothesis without testing it, but when it can be done, within a reasonable budget, may be far into the future.]  Afternote: Now that earthlings have started landing satellites onto comets, this hypothesis might be testable on a much smaller scale, without needing something as big as another Earth-sized-world, to sacrifice, or to experiment upon.

[*Monkeywrench in the works, if the earth-moon center of gravity is taken into account, it is possible that we could actually be sucked-up, into the sky, depending on the moon’s position in the sky, either above or below the surface. Just realized October, 2014]

That I know of, no other theory makes that prediction with anywhere near the same level of confidence. There is not a bit of suspicion in the mainstream world that something like the above could happen. If it was not for the C-R theory, that idea might never intentionally be tested sometime in the future.

Black-Holes C-R may Tango together gracefully, but they will not devour each other.

There are other things on the horizon.  One of the most interesting was the announcement that about 1/3 of the way across the universe, another galaxy system was found that had 3 supermassive Black-Holes C-R orbiting together, within a few hundred light years, in the same system.  This system was the one where those same Black-Holes C-R are closer together than anywhere else we know.  Apparently, three other systems with 3 supermassive Black-Holes C-R were known about, but the holes were not nearly as close together in the other systems.

I consider this great news for the C-R theory, because no other conventional theory expects that Black-Holes C-R cannot, and do not eat each other.  Part of that is because, once matter is eaten by a Black-Hole C-R, that mass is ALREADY stored at it’s lowest possible gravitational energy-state.  This makes it IMPOSSIBLE for another Black-Hole C-R to come along and eat it again, while releasing the “conventionally-expected amount” of additional energy.  NOTE: In the Newtonian expectation, as long as there is a large mass at some separating distance, there is always MORE energy to be released.

A Fizzle and a “dud”, or, a title for the line below, punning: “Sum of the time” – or

Adding TWO zeros together, and expecting a bigger zero as the sum

Even if it was possible for two Black-Holes C-R to merge, there would be no ensuing celestial fireworks, just a dud. Instead, it would be like adding two “lesser” zeros, and expecting a “larger” zero as the result!!!  Only the C-R theory expects Black-Holes C-R not to eat each other.  This “lack of energy diet” is why one does not go into a fancy restaurant, and order large quantities of sand to eat.  It has mass, but no taste, no calories, and no appeal.  It is just not what we have a taste for.

What is also unsuspected from this Black-Hole C-R trio is that the close encounters among Black-Holes C-R could allow any of those 3 to destabilize, and to disgorge (barf) some or all of their contents.  NOTE: If this energy release did happen somewhere, it could be mistaken for a Black-Hole C-R being eaten.

OBSERVATION: If a Black-Hole C-R becomes destabilized and barfs, all or some of the excess protons that have been concentrated over the Black-Hole’s C-R lifetime could be instantaneously freed-up, and the amount of energy available could be enough to kick-out, or accelerate a lesser-massed Black-Hole C-R at high speed from the system.

In the articles I’ve read, one of the ways this type of configuration might be detected is the corkscrew-shaped modulation pattern in one of the jets spewing particles (electrons) created a recognizable pattern, something easy for radio telescopes to detect at a distance.

There are earlier blogs, and parts of the C-R theory, where I have explained the possible release mechanisms, and the unexpectedly high energy output available, beyond the standard energies produced in supernova simulations.  The mostly positive ions comprising 99% of cosmic rays are very compatible with the C-R theory’s expectations.  Standard theories remain baffled by the observed reports, and cannot match the observed results with any imaginable computer simulations that they would accept.  Every interaction they can use to create cosmic rays expects just as much excitation of negative charges as of positive charges.

My opinion is that the C-R theory might be the most helpful source of matching the expected results to real observations.  Whether standard science can come around to accepting this unwanted “help”, by changing what they accept, or they will continue to claim that the C-R theory ideas are wrong, so they must be rejected, even though they seem to give more-correct answers.

While I do admit that I am possibly unfairly biased towards the C-R theory point-of-view, I also do want to offer it, for free consideration, to anyone who will listen.  Since this web-site is dedicated to promoting the C-R theory point-of-view, it is probably the only reliable place to receive the best advice using it to understand our universe.  I wish I could say that it has actually been tested in all possible ways, but those challenges are somewhere in the future, if ever.

What I hope to present is a logical argument for the C-R theory, and a desire to test it’s ideas as soon as possible, to see if they are correct, or wrong. Part of the challenge is that the world in general has not approached the ideas of gravity and Black-Holes C-R with anything like the type-of logic used by the C-R theory.

I believe that I possess a situational insight gained over the last 30 years which will help others to understand the operations of our universe in ways they have never previously considered.  These new ideas are simply not compatible with the current status quo.  If you are unwilling to discard some of what you have been told about this universe, you will not be able to accept the C-R theory.  The two theories are irreconcilable, and cannot both be true.  [It is also possible that neither is true.]

What is certain is that the C-R theory has adopted views that have never been seriously considered within the lifetimes of most scientists living today.  I invite any home readers out there to adopt these views, too.

Unless you consider that the C-R theory is simpler to understand, needs no new anomalies, explains existing phenomena better, and lets the universe make sense, as important, stick with what doesn’t work well, the Big Bang.  However, if you honestly try it, you will not lose anything in the process but untenable anomalies, and you should gain a new appreciation for Occams’ razor, where the simplest explanation is most likely to be found correct.

Thanks to everyone who has visited.  Be advised that more than one visit to this web-site will probably needed to get the full measure of the C-R theory.

To submit questions, please use the contact the author form.  If you note phenomena that are better-explained by the C-R theory, feel free to suggest links to post, or mention where you found the article. If you find something more supportive of the Big Bang, please post a suggestion for a link-to or a mention-about the article, or observation.

Jerry Reynard

Last edited or corrected on February 8th, 2015


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 long, glowing, white-hot plasma ball of light might have left an additional echo of light, significant enough to out-compete with the “brief”, initial flash.  NOTE: I personally do not believe that the 2.7K has anything at all to do with proving the Big Bang, but this new thought did remind me that here was a possible new item to consider, about another argument against the 2.7K’s existence contributing anything to the proof supporting the Big Bang.

Over 50% of Americans Do Not Believe in the Big Bang

I just heard about an article stating that there was a new poll taken, indicating that over 50% of Americans do not believe in the Big Bang.  That is very good news for the C-R theory, because the C-R theory might be the strongest, most-supported by nature, simplest to understand, easiest to accept, alternative theory out there. The C-R theory might be the best possible alternative theory for those doubters, if I can get it into their hands, or get them to consider it.

I would like to start addressing this issue, and concentrate in one blog, some of the main reasons one should discard the Big Bang, and replace it with the C-R theory.  While it might not be perfect for everyone, I would like to show the natural fit that the C-R theory has, to explain just what is seen in this universe.

What does the C-R theory have Against the Singularity?

Let me start my diatribe against ‘the starting singularity’ with the claim that I do not believe it ever existed.  That said, the first possible comment is, what was inside that singularity, at the beginning?  The least ridiculous answer would seem to be, everything that existed from the previous occurrence(s) of the universe.  That would beg the question, what got that singularity “completely filled-up” in the first place?

A more ridiculous answer would be, the starting singularity was simply a collection of some limited amounts of mass, with nowhere near the full mass that exists now in this universe, stuffed inside.  A rhetorical question could be, how little-of a mass could have existed inside any singularity, to get “our” full universe-launch underway?

Whatever answer one chose for the previous two possibilities, — is a “scientific”, or lab-testable answer even possible?  If it is not, then speculation or “myth” seems to be the only option.  As such, the starting singularity seems forever clouded in obscurity, unless a more modern day example could be found, and tested.

Getting Access (in)to the Singularity

Any speculation about starting-off this universe’s Big Bang from a singularity would necessarily have a problem accessing that same singularity.  Mainstream science maintains that there is a singularity inside, at the center of every conventional black hole.  That creates a large problem for access, right there.  So far, no “naked” singularity has ever been found, by itself.  That seems to indicate that any singularity would only be found inside a generic-conventional black hole, or surrounded by clouds of mass and gas.

Compounding that conundrum would be, if the starting singularity held the mass of a full universe inside, the generic black hole containing that singularity would be enormous in size, yet almost totally empty inside, except for that one small, infinitesimal dot.  It would prove very difficult to deliberately maneuver any object inside, in an effort to disturb the contents of the singularity.

Disturbing The Singularity

The starting singularity is probably the most outrageous, hardest-to-swallow, least-testable claim “Science” has ever made.  If the singularity is all that it is supposed to be, what, if anything would make it unstable enough to “violate it’s own rules”, and barf (disgorge it’s contents)?  Remember, “Science” believes that the entire mass of this universe, or at least a starting seed for it all, was confined within that singularity.  NOTE: If the universe’s entire starting mass was not there, but just some far-lesser amount of it, does that not just compound the “Accountability-issue”, even more, for violating the principle of Conservation-of-Energy?

The second glaring inconsistency is that something, either internal or external, would be needed to disturb this singularity violently enough, or vigorously-enough, to get it started, disgorging it’s contents.  Whatever it was, science does not have any solid, fixed idea for what it could be.

If the disturbing, or originating source was contained within the inside of the singularity, [the starting point-source for everything packed-in there], the “spare-wiggle-room” inside the infinitesimal singularity leaves not enough room for a credible manipulation mechanism.  Science otherwise needs to have some “external” source available, [but never, it seems, a Creator], to get the whole mess going.

A Whole New “Dimension” to the Argument

What is most commonly invoked nowadays, is an interaction with an external, or parallel dimension, for which there is also no evidence.  Even if it could be proved that many, or an infinite number of parallel dimensions co-existed alongside ours, they seem to remain firmly-isolated, and have never been caught influencing matter within our universe in any known experiment. [Admittedly, though, there is so much universe, and so much of it is nearly empty volume, now, that one cannot necessarily just go by the absence of evidence, limited to what we find on earth, and vicinity, to cover all possibilities.]

Look Ma: No Branes (or No Brains)

Even if we were to grant some speculative, external starting source, like a physical collision or a crash, possibly initiated from a “brane” [or, membrane?] from a hidden dimension, capable of exerting a push or a pressure to “jump-start” the singularity from it’s outside, to get it to start unpacking itself, how long would it take, to get to a place where mainstream science “is comfortable with” in their minds?  AFTER-NOTE:  Considering the effective surface-area of the infinitesimal singularity, instigating that starting force becomes even more difficult.

With that granted, why should this (imaginary) singularity suddenly start to violate it’s very nature?  That still requires processes that simply cannot be investigated by any practical means, from any laboratory, anywhere on earth.  Even at the peak energies produced in the LHC, [the Large Hadron Collider], the most expensive, largest, most energetic scientific structure mankind has ever created to investigate particles, is orders-of-magnitude too wimpy and they are woefully too inadequate to reproduce the energy levels at a singularity, that would be needed to test what science claims occurred at the beginning.

Pssst… Hey, Buddy, have you got a second?

If so, then slice it up into a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth

At one trillionth, of one trillionth, of one trillionth of a second after the Big Bang’s start, mainstream science finally boasts that they can “confidently” understand the bulk of the processes, from then, on, using our current knowledge. [However, the general public is still quite uncomfortable with this process, and they are not nearly as confident in the announced results as the experts are of the accuracy of their own devices.]

From this point-in-time, it takes an estimated additional 380,000 years before the universe expands enough, and cools down enough, until everything stops being a glowing, white-hot-plasma blob.  Finally, the plasma then begins to condense, and start to become individual hydrogen atoms, with a smattering of helium, and even less of all other, heavier elements.  This matter will start forming the first generation of stars, and somehow, also seed the first generation of supermassive (generic) black holes.

After spending 380,000 years expanding and cooling, [in their scenario], then de-ionizing, almost immediately thereafter, science now needs an energy source to re-ionize much of those very same hydrogen atoms again, and to keep them re-ionized, until this day.  A few years back, an article in Scientific American claimed that the outer 1/5th of this universe’s hydrogen atoms are ionized.

Science claims that, by measuring the objects with the strongest [or largest, highest] red-shifts, we are seeing back to those objects nearer to the dawn of our time, right after the universe’s hydrogen turned transparent.  Almost as early as one can detect, we find remarkably well-developed galaxies, some of incredible sizes, with high numbers of stars, and with supermassive Black-Holes C-R already existing at their centers.

So far, no computer-derived scenario can match the distribution and complexity of what the universe was supposed to be like, back then, that quickly.

The C-R theory’s Simpler alternative

This is where I will bring in the C-R theory alternative, and suggest something far more rational.  What if, instead of starting off with a Big Bang, our universe is infinitely-old, and has always existed, approximately like it is, right now?  In that case, all of the timing and age issues are solved, and our understanding this universe then becomes a much smaller problem of understanding (or reconciling) only what we see, now, and then answering the theorist’s objections to the finer points, as they see it.

As the C-R theory sees it, our closed universe continually recycles, and after being refreshed and restored, the matter and energy confined inside can never run-out of available, renewable energy.  The size of this universe is fixed, and stable.  The size of this universe has always been the same, over time.  It is neither expanding, nor contracting, just stable.

The red-shifts at a distance are mostly caused by natural levels of gravitational curvature, increasing at the outer edges of the universe, and decreasing near the center.  Our universe is a closed system, but it is also partially reset back to a fresh state, over and over, after ‘regional’ novae, supernovae, quasars, and GRB’s occur.   Since the system is closed, the energy inside can only recycle within, and can never fade-out, [diluted into a larger volume of infinity, outside this closed section], with time.

Does our universe’s [closed] sphere have a center?

The center of our universe, which is not supposed to exist, by the assumptions of relativity, can be identified as the most blueshifted location in this universe. [to us, and to everyone else]  This location has been misnamed “The Great Attractor”, as the conventional belief is: this portion of the universe is attracting us towards it.

I have covered the Great Attractor in other blogs before, so I will not reexplain the whole concept here.  At this time, I will state that the name is based upon the Newtonian understanding of gravity, that gravity is always a simple attractive force, with it’s full influence summed-up from the size and density of the mass.  While this “attraction-like” concept may function well as long as the strength is always increasing, it has never been tested, back below this point, after gravity reaches it’s peak, then decreases.  NOTE: On earth, gravity actually continues to increase to it’s highest level, (or influence), as one nears the Core-Mantle boundary, some 2886 km. below earth’s surface.  From there, the warping then drops off, back to zero, (or to the minimum influence), at the center.

What has never been tested with Newtonian type gravity is: Does gravity still attract a mass with a lesser ‘pull’, after it has reached it’s peak warping?  Or, will it merely continue-on, as expected, with an ever decreasing influence, all the way down to the center of the mass?  While the Newtonian answer is simply yes, the C-R theory idea that this scenario may not happen, has never been seriously debated or anticipated by “science”, based upon the standard thinking about gravity.

Matter has “no energy” to just drop-in

Where the C-R theory varies in it’s understanding is: gravity completely loses it’s “attractive” power, after gravity peaks.  There is no “gravitational constant”, providing the residual influence as the mass attempts to descend further down.  Rather, once gravity peaks, at the maximum warping, and the mass reaches “the minimum-gravitational energy position”, it reaches the most curved or warped portion of spacetime.  Afterward, additional energy must be added back-in to that [drained?] mass, in order for that mass to be allowed to descend back down, in to a higher-energy, (less warped), environment* again. (*this same restriction also what prevents any possibility of the collapse into a singularity)

While this simple (new) idea about indirect gravity may sound radical at first, it allows one to understand how Black-Holes C-R work, and why “the energy” to provide gravity does not, and cannot, radiate out, or couple-through, from the inside of a Black-Hole C-R.  The influence that causes gravity is always produced locally, outside of the Black-Hole C-R, and needs no internal energy-emissions to couple-out across the Schwarzschild radius from the inside.

Is the 2.7K background temperature just an ongoing echo?

{HELLO, …hello, …hello, …}

The next big objection from modern theorists would be, but what about the 2.7K background radiation, coming equally from all directions in the sky?  The C-R theory claims that this 2.7K has absolutely nothing to do with a leftover, cooled-down, 13.8 billion year old Big Bang echo, but is merely an averaged-out echo, [or a reverberation], continually re-derived from all of the activities occurring in this universe, spread-out, bounced-around, and slowed-down, then reflected-back, very weakly, from the outermost edges of this universe.  As such, that type of 2.7K will always remain consistent, and, on-average, never change over time, when it is viewed from the same environment.

As proof, the C-R theory claims that, lets say, just tap your foot and wait 1.4 billion years into the future, [an additional 10% of our universe’s suspected age], and then measure the background temperature, again.  Instead of measuring about 2.5K, from earth, the background temperature will remain a constant 2.7K, and unaffected by increasing time.  Unfortunately, there might not be any quicker way to check on the direction and the amount of cooling, without waiting millions of elapsed years.

Comparison Shopping

The best question to ask is: Which of the two, competing, “universe-understanding” scenarios, seems to be the most reasonable, and which one needs the most outrageous violations of common sense, to understand?  In a fair fight, the C-R theory should win, as measured by the sensibilities of the general public. {If the choice was left to the “experts”, only their pre-held views would be touted as right.}

The Neutral Zone C-R

I would like to add a new explanation to the idea of the Neutral Zone C-R.  It is like a paper-thin “jail”, sandwiched-between two distinct Schwarzschild radii.  One is always located further inside, and the other one always outside.  Nature uses this unsuspected region as a “tool” to accomplish some very specific functions, necessary to our universe’s survival.

NOTE: Compare the usefulness of the Neutral Zone C-R to the conventional suspicion of a “firewall” immediately inside a (conventional) black hole, blocking matter’s path from proceeding into the singularity.

A while back, I had decided to stop emphasizing [by always adding] the IB3 prefix to every occurrence of “Schwarschild radius” found in the C-R theory.  Still, I want to emphatically emphasize the 3 fundamental features highlighted in the C-R theory’s unique ideas about properties allowed-through, or blocked-by the Schwarzschild radius.  They are: the Isolation Boundary, the Insulation Boundary, and the Information Boundary.  Let me expand upon each of these interrelated concepts, below:

1. Isolation Boundary

The isolation boundary is significant in it’s own right.  Inside this boundary, the inside Active Zone C-R is isolated from the outside world, with the sole exception that the knowledge of it’s internal mass can be added to the knowledge of the additional mass accumulated, over time, inside the Neutral Zone C-R.

NOTE: How nature allows this knowledge of the mass inside to “leak out” or to be known is a mystery to me.  I suspect, it is allowed by curvature, something of a geometric-like, twisting-condition*, somewhat akin to the slope of a hill or a mountain.  The slope itself is just a concept, or a trend., but is NOT a physical presence.  The underlying mass that creates it, or defines it, would have to be changed or modified to change the slope.  We could not just “drag the slope” somewhere else to redefine it, like we could do using computer software in a graphics program to change “imaginary properties” of an object existing within the software-defined universe.  {*HINT: Think of twisting a floor mop to squeeze-out the water, and dry-out the wet mop, releasing it’s water.}

Essentially, the inside volume can be set-aside, and not affected by real-world events happening in other set-aside volumes, located outside of the volume in question.  It is isolated from the happenings “elsewhere”.

2. Insulation Boundary

The Insulation Boundary effectively insulates each closed region, or volume, from other volumes, electrically.  No communication of electrical charge values in one region can be known, sensed, acted-upon, or measured, from another region.  Conventional theory thinking maintains that this electrical knowledge just routinely couples-over, with no loss of integrity, and that this sensing cannot be blocked or ignored.

By the C-R theory, there is simply no available mechanism that can possibly convey electrical charge information across these boundaries, as they prevent,  [block] any “speed-of-light” limited travels.  Each closed volume independently is ignorant of anything electrical, -occurring within other volumes, or insulated from it.

However, the value of [or knowledge-of] the gravitational curvature is communicated-out, without any energy emissions.  Normally, there are no disturbances of this method, which could be sensed or measured, as changing with time.  A lone exception could be, if the mass inside could be non-linearly distributed and rotated over time, [or internally modulated by lumpiness].  NOTE: These modulated disturbances are not normal, but might be deliberately achieved, or could be cyclic for a closely-orbiting binary pair.

3. Information Boundary

The Information Boundary is very similar to the above two items, but encompasses any type of information.  Each volume is isolated and independent, and is out of communication with it’s neighbors.  No mechanism exists to communicate-out values, ideas, including any electromagnetic waves, angular momentum, or spin.

NOTE: If the barrier between these volumes is removed or eliminated, all communications and knowledge-transfers could resume.  Then, knowledge of these values could be exchanged again. This barrier would never “fade-away” on it’s own, but might be violently or catastrophically removed or breached.  Normal operation means that these barriers are near-absolute.


If there are such things as tachyons, or particles that can only travel faster than the speed of light, they would not be excluded from passing thru or across those barriers, referenced above.  Whether the tachyons could be used to communicate effectively to us, by leaving behind some type of detectable, physical message for us, would remain to be “seen”.  How could they place a distinct message in a fixed, mailbox-like slot, without simply “averaging” their message, simultaneously, throughout widely distributed volumes across light-years of space, almost everywhere?  Could they even be aware of our “sub-lightspeed” existence, or would everything slower than lightspeed, [including, us], be forever forbidden to their knowledge, or just a blur to them?

CONCLUSION: The 3 varieties of barrier described above establish a real limit of our knowledge within Black-Holes C-R

Rather than creating a new dilemma, the physical knowledge barriers described by the C-R theory allow a very practical new use for Black-Holes C-R, unsuspected by mainstream science.  Since the very properties prevent knowledge of electrical events within this closed-off region, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of these charges.  Mainstream science would maintain that these charges simply could not be hidden, but would manifest their presence, and make their charges known.

Quite clearly, after describing the differences in the above 3 explanations, I hope that you should start to understand why the use of the term “event horizon” to describe this location is a grave misnomer, and does a great disservice to persons seeking understanding.  The term [event horizon] glosses-over, or obscures the real purpose of the Schwarzschild radius, by mis-directing one’s thinking to be concerned mostly about the timing of the events happening inside, rather than the critical differences inside.

Only when one re-learns, in a new way, what happens at the Black-Hole C-R, can one understand how this universe operates, and understand the known phenomena using processes we do see.  That I know-of, no other scientific theory has a simple, basic understanding of the Black-Hole C-R, clearly explaining it’s role, it’s purpose, and it’s usefulness.

Again, it is necessary to re-consider what nature is up to, and how this new concept can be exploited, to provide some really marvelous results, unachievable by conventional “wisdom”.

My Apologies if “the Space-Thief” strikes again

I go to great lengths to place two spaces after every complete sentence, unless I place an explanatory “aside” in a parenthesis bracket (like this), then, one space is intended.  When I paste-in my blog’s text using the computer, the software from this version of WordPress takes the content, and tries to make it conform to the generic HTML standard; the “language” that computers understand to mark-up the text for web presentation.  Whenever this happens, the “Space Thief” in the software jumps in and steals every carefully placed extra space between sentences, out of the pasted-in text.

What I then attempt to do is to manually log-in, and re-insert each stolen space back in (or, more truthfully, one of that space’s identical siblings, like twins, triplets, quadruplets, …).  Sometimes, I miss one, or more, or I am too busy, or tired to fix them after my initial posting.  Somehow, small corruptions sneak back in, such as whenever the version of WordPress is updated, or whenever my web master fixes one of those annoying little software bugs that bother me.  Sometimes little gremlins sneak in to corrupt some of my text items, over time, and I don’t always catch them, right away.

At times, when I go in to fix one small bug, another two or three defects seem to creep-in to replace the original offender, making the presentation appear worse afterward, than if I had left well-enough alone.  There have been times where I was tempted to put in some intentional bugs in my newest posts, just to see, first, if anyone noticed it, then to see if they bothered to report it.  I did not do so, intentionally, yet, but the thought had occurred to me.

Since I occasionally use deliberate word misusages, intended for adding some humor, I do not use an automatic spell checker/correcter.  Sometimes, I also try to help to modify our language, by adding shades of meaning to words, to adapt those instances into the language, to prepare it so the way I want it to be used becomes accepted as normal.  If this happened, I would hope that others would follow.  NOTE: Black-Hole C-R would be the one instance I would most like to see that change added.  Only when mass groups use language differently, will the grammar police allow that new usage to become the standard usage.

Now, I will return back to commenting on normal science again.

I used to get intelligently written, well constructed letters from readers, discussing important issues concerning the C-R theory, about every 6 months or so.  With the comments section right now, I get mostly spamed messages, mostly plugging some various commercial wares, and occasionally, I get some generically encouraging or positive comments.

I miss those “good ole days” when things like potentially understanding this universe mattered more to some people, like my ideal, target audience.  If you have been tempted to write-in an intelligently-crafted letter, and argue or dispute a fine point in my logic, I would be glad to accommodate you.

One of my highest desires is that some home readers will start to be able to notice and/or discover things before I do, using the C-R theory guided speculations.  Then, I will know that at least some readers are comprehending what they read, well enough to apply it, and use it correctly.

It is also possible that, among the home reader crowd, is one who thinks even more “out-of-the-box” than I do, and can discover new links with reported items, that I never would have connected.  I do not regard the items in the C-R theory as MY proprietary ideas, only as items that nature (or the Creator) has allowed me to understand.  I regard them as a non-exclusive “gift”, to me, and also to everyone else who accepts them.  I want these ideas to be permitted to become a common inheritance, worldwide, if they are correct.

If you are willing, and able to build upon these new ideas, and if you can take them further than I would have dreamed, I welcome your attempt to do so.  It is possible that some [or, all] of my reasoning is just plain wrong.  If so, I would like to know where my errors lie.

Should I subtitle this web-site: If you do not understand both Why and How this universe functions, perhaps you should consider switching your “Preferred Theory of Choice” to either The Comedy-Recycling Theory, or the Completely Recycling Theory (of the Entire-Known Universe)?

Historically, I used to subtitle this theory “Laughed-at by people from all over the world, sometimes intentionally”.

I also might consider adding: An Intelligent [or, more reasonable], Alternative to the Big Bang, needing far-fewer, unreasonable anomalies.

Try: A More Reasonable Alternative to Understanding this Universe

I am planning to write short, 2-5 page guides to explain sub-portions of the C-R theory.  The lists below are some of the topics I would consider creating.  If you home readers have any preferences, in which ones I should do first, please let me know what you would like me to write about.  If you have questions, or topics not covered here, I am also open to blogging about those suggestions.  NOTE: There may be some topics that are too technical for my understanding, or where I have not yet formed an opinion.  Most topics listed are ones where the C-R theory has very distinct ideas differing from mainstream expectations.

How To series: Some Possibilities

1. How to reunderstand gravity

2. How gravity and electromagnetism are not alike.

3. How to care-for and Feed your new Black-Hole C-R

4. How to reverse (or restore, reset) Entropy

5. How to isolate and concentrate electrical charges

6. How to Explain the origin of Cosmic Rays

7. How to do away with the idea of, or the need-for, Dark Matter

8. How to keep this universe from Collapsing [or Expanding]

9. How Newtonian Gravity and C-R theory gravity are different

10. How to eliminate the possibility of the Singularity

11. How [or Why] to replace “The Event Horizon” with “The Schwarzschild radius”

12. How to fix the Information Paradox

13. How to explain the Omega Problem

14. How to find the Universe’s “Preferred Reference Frame”

15. How the 2.7K background radiation is compatible with a Closed Universe, and not as the proof of a Big Bang

16. How to Easily Explain the working of a Black-Hole’s C-R Jets

17. How the Neutral Zone C-R works

18. How the Active Zone(s) C-R work(s)

Explain to Me:

1. How the C-R theory approach differs from The Big Bang

2. Why there is no Singularity, ever

3. How to replace Dark Energy

4. What Happens in Quasars, and Supernovae

5. Why there was no Big Bang

6. What to expect from Gamma Ray Bursts

7. Why is redshift increasing with distance?

8. What will this universe look like in 10 Billion Years?

9. Where is the Missing Mass?

10. What is “The Great Attractor”?

11. Is our Universe Really Expanding?

12. Why should I Exclusively Use a “Brand Name” Black-Hole C-R?

13. Does gravity increase or decrease with depth, on Earth?

14. What was missed by science?

15. Can this Universe make sense to You?

16. Should multiply-ionized excess positive charges be of interest?

These were just some of the topics I would like to explain to our home-readers, in short, compact treatments.

If you have additional topics, or new discoveries you would like a C-R theory view on, I would like to hear from you.  Even if there is no difference, I might still try to explain it as I see it.

As always, thank you for visiting this web site.  Whether or not you believe it is correct, I do hope you have heard reasonings, and new thoughts, not covered elsewhere, and ideas that have not yet occurred to you.  If you still disagree, that is expected.  Consider re-visiting, and read more on your next visit.  As always, I welcome comments, questions, jokes, puns, and topics of possible interest to all.  If you want to suggest a link to a free web-site which has relevant content, to help readers to understand these ideas, or cover competing ideas, please paste-in those links, too.

Jerry Reynard This Blog was Written and posted by May 11th, 2014, edited June 8



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 C-R theory also predicts that the 2.7K radiation would measure warmer at every outlying location in the universe, increasing more as we venture further outward.  If, [or when] we could travel to and from distant, outlying portions of our universe and measure the background radiation temperature there, locally, as the local time-rate (there) has slowed-down [as compared to us, here], we would note that the background temperature of the sky seemed warmer to us, locally, there.

Alternately, as we ventured closer inwards, toward “The Great Attractor”, there would be a slight cooling of the 2.7K, as we got closer to the center of the universe*. (*the center of the volume where contents were the most blueshifted to us, here on earth)  This would be because, in this volume, the universe was clocking slightly faster than what we experience on earth. [Technically, it is the LEAST slowed-down portion of space-time, and also the least curved.]

Additionally, the C-R theory predicts that, in the long-term future, the 2.7K radiation will never cool down with time, to us here on earth.  This is because the 2.7K that we do see has nothing whatsoever to do with being a red-shifted remnant, leftover from the Big Bang, but is more similar-to the roar of a waterfall, although it is spread-out all over the sky, and does not originate from just one unique location, but originates from every direction, simultaneously.  It is the result from all of the activity in this universe, averaged-out and diluted, and weakened, signal-strength-wise.

NOTE: As we ventured about in this universe, we would not sense the local time rate difference as we gradually adapted to each new location.  Rather, everything that we measured elsewhere would appear to change, relative to every new location.

If we ventured outward in this universe, everything lying further outward would appear to become less red-shifted.  Also, the 2.7K background radiation would measure warmer, because our newly slowed-down timeframe rate would be closer to the new location’s time-rate.  Conversely, everything further inward would appear to become more blueshifted to us.  NOTE: In reality, it would be our own reference frame that would be changing, and everyone else just remained the same.

Looking back towards earth, it’s temperature would change to us systematically.

Because the universe has always existed [by the C-R theory], this 2.7K background radiation is averaged-out smoothly, over time, and is uniformly equal from all directions, after small corrections for our various “local motions” as we orbit the sun, the spiral arm of the galaxy, and it then orbits the galaxy, then the local cluster.  One need not bother with interpreting the incredibly small deviations and modulations observed in the parts per million range, as they are truly insignificant.

Unfortunately, before we could observe both of those above predictions, we might have to wait millions, to a billion years, to allow sufficient time for humans to progress that far out, then return again, to share our findings.  We will just have to wait patiently for science to be able to devise tests to measure the local background temperature elsewhere, and to test for any measurable cooling rate, over time.  It is not likely that a much quicker way to test this will be available anytime soon. [Future generations may yet devise some clever strategy, or find an actual method to test this hypothesis in decades or centuries ahead, but probably not much sooner than that.]

Born Heavy, Not Just Putting on Weight Quickly

Another recent development in standard thinking is that generic black holes in the initial galaxies were already heavyweights surprisingly soon after the Big Bang.  Billion-solar-mass (generic) black holes were thought to be present when the universe was supposedly very young, under 300 million years old, and much smaller-sized than it is now.  The thinking now is that these black holes were just born big, as they did not have sufficient time to merge with other, lesser black holes, or gobble-up large galaxies to get that big that soon.

Where the C-R theory might triumph:

How to Eliminate the Paradox from the “Information Paradox” – or –:

An Exit Strategy from a Black-Hole C-R, — How Nature has the “Problem” Covered

There was a 1 page article by Michael Moyer in the Advances section in the April, 2014 issue of Scientific American, page #16, discussing the new Black-Hole C-R battle, featuring the information paradox, covering the arguments about what happens to the “information”, [or the mass], that enters the Black-Hole C-R?  This is one area where the C-R theory has the unique new insights needed to provide the [or, a] proper solution.

Whereas modern thinkers now suspect that there is something like a “firewall” immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius* [*more commonly referred to by everyone else as “the event horizon 1“].  {1 The C-R theory recommends eliminating that term forever, as it is highly misleading and directs one’s focus away from natures intended purpose, completely.}  While this firewall solution covers some of the information paradox, by removing some of the consequences from incoming matter landing at the imaginary singularity, it really does not solve the problem.

Where the C-R theory has real differences is at the thin volume immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  Nature has gone to a great deal of trouble to accumulate exactly enough mass, at exactly the right internal density to achieve a critical mass.

This “exactly critical” inside mass provides an “at, or over the speed-of-light” escape velocity inside a thin-shelled volume.  NOTE: This special condition is critical to understanding what the Black-Hole C-R does with that situation.  What is also unique is that once this occurs, this internal mass is perfectly stable.  It becomes sealed-off, and it will no longer accept any additional matter inside this region.

The conditions inside are such that this internal mass is least energetic at the Schwarzschild radius, and most energetic at the center.  This position-sensitive energy variability thus stabilizes the structure, and does not allow anything outlying to further collapse inward, unless it can gain additional energy.

This stable, internal section [known as an Active Zone C-R] also acts as a placeholder, keeping the conditions immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius internally stable.   With a stable base established inside, a very important condition that, only in that “inbetween” volume, the escape velocity exceeds the speed of light.  What this does is shut-down all possible “speed-of-light” based interactions inside this volume.  This special zone is therefore termed “The Neutral Zone C-R“.

IMPORTANT: Any charged matter entering this Neutral Zone C-R is never actually neutralized, but it is temporarily restrained from sensing other charges, or acting “charged” -like it used to.

ALSO NOTE: Both further outside, and further inside of this thin volume, all “speed-of-light” interactions are still allowed.  However, only inside this special zone, conditions force all electrical charges to act as if they were neutral, and ignore their internal neighbors, too, as long as they remain confined.

In conventional thinking, it is just ASSUMED that, like gravity, information about the internal electrical charges IS always coupled out.  However, NO mechanism exists to couple-out ANY information about the electrical charges trapped inside when speed-of-light limited information/communication cannot take place.  Essentially, electromagnetic force carriers, [or light] simply cannot travel fast enough to escape.

When [or if] positive charges are swallowed due to their higher mass, they act as if they are neutral, and the charge is temporarily turned-off.  Technically, measurable time also does not exist within this zone.  In other words, here, entropy is restored, or reset back to zero.


1. Positive charges, and neutrons accumulate inside this “Neutral Zone C-R“.  Everything the Black-Hole C-R eats goes into this special zone, but is NEVER allowed to fall further inside, where real time still actively functions.

2. All of the more kinetically active electrons escape, and they simply do not follow their nuclei inside.  This deliberate, mass-selected, charge imbalance distribution mechanism is critical to the overall plan.

3. Outside of this Neutral Zone C-R, no knowledge of the accumulated charges inside is permitted to couple-out. [This knowledge of the electrical charge build-up also does not couple further inside, by leaking charge-level information into the inner Active Zone C-R, either.]

4. Effectively, every Black-Hole C-R automatically creates and possesses a Neutral Zone C-R.  It then traps everything additional eaten inside this “Neutral Zone C-R“, until it builds-up vast quantities of the ONLY KNOWN FORCE that CAN actually overcome gravity in a fair fight.  {Conditions will occur later-on, to permit the release those confined Electromagnetic charges, after the Neutral Zone C-R becomes distorted enough to be unstable, then enough mass escapes.}

5. Excess electrons are freed-up outside every feeding Black-Hole C-R, creating vast electrical imbalances, magnetic fields, stray voltages, and current streams to influence the movement of matter within galaxies, rivaling the influence that “pure gravity allows”.

[NOTE: No mysterious influences from dark matter are ever needed, just a scientifically well-known force {electromagnetism}, competing against gravity, which is also 1040 times stronger than gravity in a direct, head-to-head battle.  SAD HINT: The evidence is obvious, wherever one looks, that electromotive processes are active everywhere inside this universe.]

6. Since ALL of the trapped positive charges can eventually be liberated, or untrapped, EVERYTHING ever eaten by any Black-Hole C-R is 100%* recoverable.  [*Technically, the matter further inside the Black-Hole C-R, located in the inner Active Zone C-R, may still be out of communication with the outside world, except for the external effects from the gravity generated by the additional mass inside.]

Information Paradox: Completely Solved

Essentially, the C-R theory thus solves the information paradox, shows some potential uses involved in recycling and restoring both matter and energy using Black-Holes C-R, and explains a totally natural cause for some of the origins of cosmic rays.  [See later in this blog for a fuller explanation of the Black-Hole C-R — Cosmic Ray connection.]

The cover article in the April Scientific American magazine, starting on page 38, by Michael D. Lemonick, titled: The First Starlight, has implications which the C-R theory might help to explain.  It covered the evolving conventional view on how soon some early galaxies contained large masses.  They were present within a few hundred million years of the start of reionization of hydrogen atoms.  This took place approximately 300-400 million years after the Big Bang, right after the initial ball of hot plasma cooled-off to stop glowing, de-ionize and condense into transparent, neutral hydrogen gas.

Almost immediately, this condensed hydrogen then started to be re-ionized again, as a gas, by some mysterious process and energy source.  The galaxies available did not generate anywhere enough ultraviolet radiation to accomplish this.  The article did mention that perhaps some of the re-ionization energy came from the initial encounter of the condensed hydrogen gas by (conventional) black holes.

From the conventional view, the small amount of “early galaxies” detected with a high-enough redshift to suggest their advanced age, would not emit anywhere near enough ultraviolet radiation to reionize most of this universe’s hydrogen.

A “Starring” Role [for the C-R theory]

One of the few theories that suggests a “natural” cause of the amount, and the duration of the ionization for much of this universe’s hydrogen, is the C-R theory.  Only the C-R theory has every “eating” Black-Hole C-R playing a “starring” role to help ionize matter in this universe.  Whenever one feeds on neutral hydrogen gas, it consumes the proton/neutron combinations, and spits-out the leftover electrons.

One strong advantage the C-R theory has with an infinitely-old universe is that it faces no such time constraint, as it maintains that the universe has always existed, at it’s present size, with approximately the same appearance everywhere as it looks right now.  Matter inside simply recycles, and is continually being refreshed.

HINT: The C-R theory does claim that our universe is not the same everywhere, but is running the slowest at the outer edges.  It runs slower as one ventures further out.  This is the true cause of the increasing redshifts, with increasing distance.  This is what we do see, and the increasing red-shifts outward are not caused-by a 13.8 billion year long Doppler shift from the expansion from the initial explosion.

NOTE: This idea also does away with a need for dark energy, or a requirement for additional energy needed to drive this expansion at an ever expanding rate.

ADDITIONAL NOTE: The reason that distant type 1a supernovae appear dimmer than expected by standard theory is that they actually are dimmer.  They are not clocking as fast as they would if they existed nearer to both the center of the universe, and to the earth.  Thus, the observed supernova data do not support the supposed “expansion rate”, and that rate is not increasing or expanding with time, either.

All scientists would need to do to fix their troubles would be to change [or abandon] their initial assumptions, and pay closer attention to the known observations.

HELP WANTED: We Need a Good, Simple Explanation for Cosmic Rays

There was a 6 page article starting on page 30, by Angela Olinto, in the April, 2014 Astronomy magazine about: Solving the Mystery of Cosmic Rays.  Science is baffled by any mechanism that allows 99% of Cosmic Rays to be mostly positive charges, like protons and nuclei, and only affects 1% of the Cosmic Rays that are negative charges, with energies spanning 12 orders of magnitude, up to at least 1020 eV.  What is excellent for the C-R theory is that it uniquely suggests just such a mechanism which selectively provides an easy to describe process, whereby Black-Holes C-R effectively concentrate mostly positive charges (ions) stripped of ALL their electrons, primed to release those concentrated charges.

The article states that above 1017 eV, most of the cosmic rays are thought to come from outside the Milky Way galaxy.  The article wrote about a new generation of ultra high energy detectors coming on line, that may be able to shed light on the origins of the highest energy cosmic rays.  Those ultra-high energy Cosmic Rays might not be as easily deflected by stray magnetic fields as the lower energy particles would be, making it possible to discern the direction of the source..

If the C-R theory is correct, then novae, supernovae, gamma ray bursts, quasars, and active galaxies or Seyfert galaxies are all contributing to the vast pool of cosmic ray sources.  NOTE: Mainstream science has routinely DISMISSED just such a mechanism from any consideration, pre-rejecting the idea as preposterous.  Other than the FACT, that the C-R theory ideas might actually work to produce just the type of results that ARE OBSERVED in the real world, they are considered untenable and unreasonable.

This is where YOU, the home reader can help to spread the favorable consideration of these ideas, and decide for yourselves whether or not they are as unreasonable (but successful in arriving at a practical solution) as science believes them to be.

Look, and then they “Are Gone”

An additional brief mention in the quick takes column (page 15) in the same April, 2014 Astronomy magazine announced that astronomers discovered Argon containing molecules (compounds) in the remains of the Crab Nebula (M1).  While I have said publicly that I expected science to find Helium compounds, I did not think ahead boldly enough to extend that expectation to include the more bulky “inert” noble gasses, too.  Still, I consider that good news for the C-R theory.  With all of the extreme ionization going on, it is not surprising to me that any ionized chemical radicals would be attracted to, and bind (or combine) with chemically “inert” neutral Argon atoms.  I would also expect Helium, Neon, Xenon, Krypton, and Radon compounds to be out there, whether or not we can spot their chemical signatures from that region [and elsewhere, too].

On page 19 of the same issue of Astronomy for April 2014 the Astro Confidential section where Kerri Ferron asked Carole G. Mundell about what she learned from studying Gamma Ray Bursts.  Using the RINGO2 polarimeter on the Liverpool telescope, they found that shortly after a burst discovered on March 8, 2012, that the highest degree of polarization ever measured indicated that the jet’s magnetic field remained intact, and consistent long after the initial burst occurred.  This indicated that the field had originated and stabilized in the burst, and might have been what helped the acceleration of the jet’s beam to achieve such high speeds.  It indicated large scale, organized magnetic fields stayed consistent within the beam over the duration of the burst.

That is good news for the C-R theory, as the C-R theory predicts jet beams from large Black-Holes C-R should be mostly pure electrons, and particles released from Gamma Ray Bursts should be large concentrations primarily of newly-released protons, mostly positive charges.  The high velocity of the beams combined with the intense magnetic fields should keep the beam’s particles collimated far longer than random collections of these same particles (each having random energy levels) could endure.

I also would like to claim that if one truly understands just how energetic this simultaneous, confined positive charge release event can be, consider the fresh, new magnetar.  One of these newly-created “beasties” can hold a huge magnetic field, over a quadrillion (1015) gauss, to start-off with.  What better way to create such huge magnetic fields than to suddenly release copious quantities of positive charges, simultaneously.  The sudden release of the positive charges, which had been slowly consumed and concentrated by any Black-Hole C-R over a long lifetime, should be a serious contender to produce or generate just such an outrageously huge magnetic field in a very short time.

On page 24 of the same April, 2014 Astronomy magazine, an article on “The Missing Universe”, by Bob Berman, addresses that some researchers suspect that we do not quite understand gravity.  In 1933, Fritz Zwicky found that the speeds of stars in the Coma cluster were high enough that the individual stars should easily escape, but they did not.  The problem repeated in other galaxies, too.

To “fix” that problem, extra gravity was imagined to be needed from an unknown and unseen source.  That was where the “mistake” was made.  Perhaps, astronomers should have guessed that another inverse-square force, electromagnetism, was also at play within most galaxies.

Instead, up to 6 times the amount of observed mass was imagined to be present, so that some-type of “gravity” alone could fix the problem in the galaxy’s arms.  Eventually, astronomers “invented” dark matter to cause the effects, holding galaxies together by gravity alone.

Every experiment done to date to show where and what this dark matter is has come up negative.  More recently, speculation on a new modification to Newtonian gravity, called MOND, for MOdified Newtonian Dynamics has come into consideration.  This theory speculates that at extremely weak levels, Newtonian gravity’s influence falls off.

While this MOND works well within galaxies, it does not work nearly as well for gravitational interactions between galaxy clusters.

One area where the C-R theory speculates that Newtonian gravity will be found to be wrong, is after gravity has moved an object (a mass) to the point of greatest gravity, the object will not continue falling or accelerating past that point.  This can be demonstrated [but not verified], by a simple experiment.  Throw a ball up, into lesser curvature, and it will always return back to the place where curvature is the greatest.  NOTE: You might claim, OK, then from the surface of the earth, why does the ball continue falling down into a hole or a well?  The real answer is simple.  Gravity actually still increases, ever so slightly, until we would reach the Core Mantle Boundary.  From there, if would fall off, and decrease to zero at Earth’s center*. [*on average, over time, that is – In reality, the center of mass for the earth-moon system would always be located partway towards the moon, but still under earth’s surface, though not exactly at the center.]

Can we just go there, and try it?  Unfortunately, no.  The temperatures there hover around the 11,000º F range, and the pressures would crush anything we could produce. Right now, we cannot even reach the lowest portion of Earth’s crust, just a few miles down.  At those depths near the Core-Mantle, rocks become plastic-like, and would ooze back into any hole we could dig, even if we could make one.

Another recent study suggested that it is earth’s rotation which creates a striped modulation pattern in earth’s magnetic field.  The striped field used to be attributed to cosmic rays.  Such a pattern has also been observed on another rotating planet within this solar system.

In the next blog, I might try to comment additionally on the current thinking on MOND, or MOdified Newtonian Dynamics.  The C-R theory has some new ideas on just where Newtonian ideas will need to be corrected. (see earlier in the blog)

What I am hoping to do is to inundate our home readers with large lists of known phenomena, reveling in the naturalness of the data-fitting, supporting each stage in the flow of the total recycling process.  I want them to notice that just such processes might already be occurring almost everywhere in the universe, if they only knew what to look for, and where to look, and how nature worked.  When you become accustomed to these claims, then you can evaluate their truthfulness, and see for yourself whether or not something very similar to what I am describing is already being observed and reported-on.

What I am trying to convey is that, by discarding the current rejections of these ideas, and concentrating on their usefulness in reproducing just what is occurring in these remote catastrophes like supernovae, gamma ray bursts, quasars, and the like, maybe the C-R theory is not as outrageous as one might at first believe.

I am trying to show just how simple this overall concept really is to understand, and how natural it feels, if only science could accept the full-cycle process as a reasonable system, if it actually works.  I would hope to reject it myself, if it produced results which did not fit reality so closely.

Either these ideas are crazy, and wrong, or they are crazy (but very logical and straightforward) and right.  I invite home readers to test out these ideas with every new observation that is posted.  Do the C-R theory ideas work for you, or will you pre-reject them, before an honest trial,  as not how nature works?

For certain, if you insist on going by the textbooks, these ideas are just plain wrong, and untenable.  If you can get past that stage, and realize that, however well intentioned the current generation of textbook authors is, they based some their understandings on what was simply accepted as right, without ever actually being tested.

Too Late for an April Fool’s Day Posting, but around 90 years later, the Joke is still underway, and the World is Still Fooled

I expected the C-R theory ideas to be laughed at, which is why I wrote the theory as “funny” to begin with, and named it as such.  I regret that I did not have this blog ready to post before April Fool’s Day (April 1) this year.  My belief is that it is mainstream science is still fooled profoundly by nature, as to the age of this universe 1, the stability of this universe 2, and the very nature of the (generic) black hole 3.

Explanation of superscripted footnotes:

1. The C-R theory posits that this universe is infinitely old, and did not come into sudden existence merely 13.8 billion years ago.  [see in the blog pages above for an alternative explanation of the 2.7K background radiation, and for the real cause of most of the redshifts observed]

2. The C-R theory claims that it is curvature which “causes” gravity.  Gravity is actually more like an after-effect, or the result from the effects already caused by curvature on matter, than a true “force”.  [HINT: A crash is like the result of two separate pieces of matter attempting to share the same physical space.  It too is a result, not the cause.  Similarly, what we think of as gravity, actually comes from curvature forcing energy out of each mass, which then shows-up as the result we see, the kinetic energy of falling.]

The natural state of our universe is a stable, fixed, closed-off, volume, like a sphere.  The matter located farthest out is worth less energy (or more curved, slowed-down, run downhill) than the matter nearer the center.  This location–time-rate difference imparts a stability on this universe, which does not need a cosmological constant to keep from collapsing inward.  [HINT: Imagine a bowling ball or a steel sphere, stable in size and content, over billions of years, unless they were somehow disturbed.]

3. The C-R theory [needs] envisions a special-type-of “brand name” Black-Hole C-R, to accomplish precisely those things that we observe that the generic black hole simply cannot do.  While I cannot say that I know that such an object exists, I can report that I feel enabled to describe a plausible situation that accounts for virtually the identical range of phenomena that seem to actually occur in nature.  While I could simply make-up or fabricate the results that I would wish to accomplish, I could not usually talk nature into going-along with my “lies” and seeming to create events in this universe quite similar to what I describe to you, after the fact.

I will leave it to the home readers to judge how well the possible scenarios I describe match the real world results, with the outcomes that scientists, astronomers, and cosmologists report on in their published articles.  Do the “outrageous” things I describe from the C-R theory  not sound similar to the observed behavior of Black-Holes C-R in this universe?

As often as I blog, I try to report on everything significant that I have found that seems to indicate some similarity to “just what the C-R theory would expect”.  I hope that, sometime soon, I can convince others that there is some merit to my “madness”, and maybe nature is not as mean and vindictive as most theorists would imagine.  I have honestly tried to show just where I think science is wrong in their expectations, and to tout my wares to feature the advantages gained by using the C-R theory.

Even if the C-R theory ideas ARE crazy, the results seem to be right [or at least, closer to the truth].  I am probably proverbially “casting my pearls before swine”, or offering the C-R theory ideas to those who simply do not want to consider them under any circumstances, and will never appreciate them.  [They would gladly trample the ideas all over the ground, stomping them into the mud, too.]  On the other hand, some readers out there really do appreciate these insights, and might find these new ideas helpful in their personal quest for knowledge.  Those readers are my primary target audience, the ones who will actually want to learn whatever helps them to understand these ideas.

If you have honest questions, suggestions, or find faults in my logic, I would enjoy your correspondence.  Use the comment form at the bottom of the home page.

You may re-post portions of this web site for discussion purposes or to comment upon my ideas.  I would appreciate your keeping the comments civilized, and not take the ideas out of their original context.  I would appreciate a mention or credit to the C-R theory to help others find it, too, if you find it helpful to you.

I would also appreciate readers suggestions for supporting ideas, revisions needed, or opposing ideas, in either books or publications, and/or on certain public web sites.  I hope to establish an “evidence locker”, where I can concentrate web links to sites containing critical ideas or phenomena of interest to the C-R theory readers.  [Pro or Con]

If any existing links no longer work, or link to inappropriate or to now irrelevant content, please indicate that, also, and I can work towards getting it corrected or removed.

Jerry Reynard   Posted April 16, last modified April 20, 2014.

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 greater daily visitor numbers we are achieving now are, at least partly because of the consistent evidence nature provides, with phenomena only the C-R theory could like, in existing reports.

If the number of visits to this site was based solely upon my "qualifications", or my "book learning" alone, without the weight of the observational evidence from the real-world, achieving 100,000 visitors in any length of time would be unthinkable.  I believe that many of the visits are return visits, with curious readers freely partaking again of the serious (and various) ideas presented only here. [I have offered these ideas to everyone, for free, for re-posting, but I do not know how effective that attempt has been at spreading these ideas more widely around the world.]

Just August 29th, a new study based on over 3 million seconds of observation time has determined that the large Black-Hole C-R at our galaxy’s center, called Sagittarius A star [Sgr A*] is a messy eater, and it spits out as much as 99% of it’s food.

What is really new here is that both science and the C-R theory are finding-out that very hot, energetic gas can and does also escape quite easily from a Black-Hole C-R.  This is a welcome insight. Initially, I had thought that science was just missing the consumption of the mass, and was only seeing the aftermath, usually only leftover electrons.

Here is where the C-R theory can be flexible enough to realize that the high-energy gas is also capable of escaping the clutches of the galaxy’s largest Black-Hole C-R so it almost starves, even with "plentiful" hot hydrogen gas {food} available, if the food is hot enough, with the high-energy available to run away.

Before this finding, the C-R theory would have said that it is ONLY the leftover electrons that are seen escaping.  It is also the presence of the electrons in that vicinity that pushes away the incoming hydrogen gas, and this is the real reason that the central Black-Hole’s C-R mass barely eats that much at one sitting.  The C-R theory is glad that now, mainstream science is also noticing that messiness in eating.

In a similar new finding, scientists have just observed a pulsar that switches operational output styles.  When starving, it puts out radio waves, but when feeding, turns on the jets, outputting the focused collimated beams that the C-R theory claims is caused by the leftover electrons.

There is still no agreement in the mass media that elsewhere, where the hydrogen gas is cold enough, it is only the leftover electrons which provide the high-energy, and have the ability to rapidly flee the vicinity, but only the C-R theory has been making those claims publicly, for many years.

There is also a new NASA probe, called LADEE, successfully launched in September, to investigate the mysteries of the suspended dust particles floating in the lunar ionosphere.  I blogged about that noted "anomaly" within the last few months, and commented that ONLY the C-R theory claims that most of the extra electrons displayed in this phenomenon should come locally, as output from our sun’s diet.

Elsewhere, the duststorms on Mars, with it’s tenuous atmosphere of about 1/99th of earth’s surface air-pressure, also prominently feature these ionized-suspended dust particles, in bands of atmospheric regions, that also hover around some 30 km. above that planet’s surface.  In both cases, mainstream science has noted the phenomena of electrically suspended dust particles, but has not yet connected BOTH to a common cause.

Science-Friction, or Science-Fiction?  Are our wits being overcharged?

When combined with the evidence for lightning from thunderstorms, aurora’s, ionized radiation belts, sunspots (indicating sub-solar-surface magnetic fields), science should eventually "connect the dots" and notice that something electrical is happening, over and above that amount suspected from a little-bit of static-friction.  The C-R theory claims that these "over-charged" phenomena have similar "causes", and do not "just happen".

This begs the question, is there a commonality here, connected-by a process where a Black-Hole C-R is involved in both places, causing both the heat-energy output and the abundant electrons?  Sadly, despite the evidence, the inquisitive nature of science has not breached this topic, or sensed a connection.  This is where the C-R theory hopes to make a difference, and connect the [not so] obvious dots to the processes that may be occurring, almost within plain sight.

Whether you agree, or disagree, I hope that I can lead you to notice some peculiar things not commonly connected.  I try to serve as a bridge to make the "commute" from the existing world system outlook, and help you move-over to the C-R theory point-of-view.  It will be easier to handle, that way.

There are several magazine articles I would like to have commented upon, and relate them to the C-R theory.  Several magazine articles from other publications elsewhere will have to wait until the next blog.  Most of the articles discussed next come from the special publication mentioned below.

There is a Special Collector’s Edition titled Extreme Physics, from Scientific American, which has several articles which could have been made more relevant by the C-R theory.  Starting on page 20, Ghostly Beacons of New Physics, by Martin Hirsch and Werner Porod, is about the current state of research covering neutrinos, and science’s attempts to use these ghostly particles to uncover new insights.  The current speculation is that the neutrinos generated in nuclear reactors "oscillate" between {at least} three states, each of which has slightly different characteristics, including mass.  There are several different experiments simultaneously occurring, each using different types of matter, trying to "intercept" these transitions.  So far, conflicting results are obtained when compared to other experiments. [NOTE: I do not pretend to understand all of the theories invoked by these experiments, nor the math needed to manipulate the results.  I merely am trying to comment upon the C-R theory’s take on what is reported in the common media.]

From what I have read elsewhere, neutrinos are supposed to be able travel through a 1 light-year thick slab of lead, with only a 50% reduction in their beam intensity. [As if any lab in this entire universe possessed anywhere near that amount of lead for testing purposes.]

To be honest, the significance of neutrinos may be overrated in conventional theory, for their role played in fusion.  The C-R theory maintains that Black-Holes C-R may take on a much more significant role in our universe’s energy production processes, whereas the actual amount contributed from fusion may be highly overrated.  The topic is still fascinating, and Black-Holes C-R may still contain and trap significant quantities of these neutrinos, until they can escape, en masse, in a release-event.

NOTE: If our universe is not expanding, but fixed in size, there may even be an Olbers’ Paradox-like dilemma, asking why we do not detect many more neutrinos shooting through this universe, for the amount of fusion that is supposed to be occurring. [HINT: The number of Black-Holes C-R actively trapping them is a big part of the C-R theory’s "new answer" to the original question.]

Another article is Origin of the Universe, by Michael S. Turner, starting on page 36.  This article covers the conventional theory ideas about the origins of this universe, and briefly restates the standard thinking with conventional ideas.  From the C-R theory viewpoint, there are simpler alternatives that might also explain the real-world observations better, which have never been considered.

Science has never seriously considered a closed universe; it has merely been mentioned, then discarded as impossible or unlikely.  Mostly, this is because science has never tried to understand "How Curvature Works", as far as gravity is concerned. If they could understand it, as the C-R theory does, they might find that the simple idea of a closed universe is surprisingly successful in recreating {virtually} all of the observed conditions, without fancy, contrived shenanigans or "conservation-of-energy-violating" requirements needing almost the full measure of energy supplied to, and used-by this universe.

Does the C-R theory offer a much more "human friendly to understand alternative" to hyperinflation?

Without ever supplying a "causative process" to explain "How hyperinflation occurred", scientists merely accept it, on faith, that it must have done so, to make their figures turn out right.  There is neither a good explanation for what started it, what PAID-FOR it, or what caused it to stop when it did, rather than continuing on, hyperinflating forever, once the process started.

The entire C-R theory alternative does not even violate conservation of energy?  CLAIM: The C-R theory might overturn the Second LAW of thermodynamics, however.

Conventional science is remarkably confident that they understand the workings of this universe, starting after about 10-35th of a second, onward.  They remain baffled for any reason for the more mysterious start of the Big Bang.  They are also remarkably flippant about suggesting that we live in a multiverse, where such explosive beginnings might be regular occurrences.  They then need more Big Bangs to go off in various sub-sections of this universe, away from any testable observation, with barely a whisper of proof for anything as outrageous.

Another article, Super Supernovae, by Avishay Gal-Yam, starting on page 44, speculates that the very largest explosions need the production of antimatter to help to provide the energy needed to make such stars explode, as the conventional wisdom, and computer simulations, cannot make those objects unstable or energetic enough to explode, otherwise.

I do not mean to sound too harsh on my comments to this next article, starting on page 58.  I just used my response to this article to paste-in some material that I had created, and needed to find a suitable place in this blog to deposit it.

The article itself is fine, and adheres to "the party line" of the standard Big Bang theory.  The title is Does Dark Energy Really Exist?, by Timothy Clifton and Pedro G. Ferreira.  I would like to show how the C-R theory’s insights can help science out of the morass of muddled thinking that science is trapped-in.  While this article is a good summation of the currently-accepted standard thinking among the astronomical community, it missed-out completely in offering the C-R theory’s perspective as a plausible proposition.

This article covered three ways of expanding a universe, but never covered a more rational thought, "What if our universe was NOT expanding at all?"  Then, the entire need for dark energy vanishes, and our universe becomes much more benign to understand.

The PROBLEM of Dark Energy is Fixed – or –

No Expansion, No Contracting

One of the key contentions from the C-R theory is that our universe is fixed in size, and content, and is not expanding.  Rather, the conditions in this universe ARE NOT the same in all directions, but differ with both location and distance from the center. [Yes, our universe HAS a real center!!!]

When we look out elsewhere, from earth, ALMOST ALL locations are redshifted to us, or slowed-down, with the redshifts increasing with increasing distances.  However, in the direction of "The Great Attractor", we find blueshifts increasing towards that location.  Since this universe is probably not both expanding in all directions, and contracting in one direction or location, perhaps there is a better explanation for both redshifts, in all directions, and blueshifts towards one location, which can solve both observations.

If we live inside a Fixed-size, closed-universe, then locations elsewhere ARE NOT exactly LIKE here on earth, but experience DIFFERENT [time-rate] conditions.  When nature shows us that elsewhere, objects are slowed-down (or redshifted) to us, perhaps THAT IS actually THE CASE.  Take it that nature TELLS us, the time rates are NOT identical THERE.  The further away we can see, the slower objects "there" seem to be "clocking".

It is the one exception of "The Great Attractor", that clues-us-in that timerates elsewhere may not ALWAYS be identical to earth’s, but might vary, by location.  Closer to the center, time clocks faster there, and everywhere else, further-out from earth’s location, time will run even slower as distance-away increases.

Fixing our universe, by "FIXING" our universe, size-wise

The C-R theory also contends that the primary reason that science has gotten this universe’s properties horribly wrong is that the assumption was made, from the theory of relativity, (without proof), that conditions elsewhere in this universe ARE identical to those on earth, time-wise.

Since science first CORRECTS the observed data to "FIX the TIME RATES" before using the observed-data to understand what goes on elsewhere, PERHAPS THAT one mistake ALONE might account for most of the discrepancies we do find. [Like needing accelerating expansion to explain the appearance of older supervovae.]

HINT: The supernova results measured from further away appear dimmer than science suspects, because the actual time-rates, there, are not the same as here on earth, but are running slower.  Nature simply gives us the best answer.

NOTES: A closed universe is not expanding, and does not require dark energy to be supplied for free, on a continual basis.  A closed universe is stable, and cannot collapse inward, [without gaining energy], and cannot expand.  Because matter further out is always worth less energy, there, it cannot simply "fall" closer in to the center, without acquiring more energy from somewhere.  None is normally available.

Gravity, as: caused by curvature, has never been properly understood.  A simple rule is: Objects only can fall-in towards a greater curvature, but they can never fall back into lesser curvature.  Objects existing in greater curvature [with their lesser energy], must gain sufficient energy before they could be allowed to "visit" lower curvature regions.

For ANY closed universe: The lowest real-time energy-rates are at the outer edges, and the fastest time rate (least slowed-down, possessing the highest amount of energy) is always at the center.  This "energy-worth-accountability" requirement stabilizes the structure of matter, and it is this same structure that also prevents any possibility for a singularity from ever forming.

Note: The outer edges must be completely filled-up, in order to close off the universe.  Their minimum energy location is there, at the Schwarzschild radius.

Note 2: The electrically driven "winds" and flows do allow some internal-mixing of the contents between regions, by paying for the energy differences from their store of energy.  Gravity may have been credited where no credit was due to dark matter.

This brief overview is more fully covered in the C-R theory, but it is a short explanation for why our universe looks like it does, and acts like it does.

Starting on page 74, there is an article by Pankaj S. Joshi about Naked Singularities.  This article covers the possibility that instead of (generic) black holes, naked singularities could form.  The C-R theory take is that, in any case, a singularity can never form, as nature has already solved this problem, covered somewhat in the C-R theory’s response to the last article (above).  What the C-R theory speculates-on is that, instead of a singularity at the center, every Black-Hole C-R has an exactly critical volume at it’s center, which is what established the Black-Hole C-R in the first place.  This entire volume inside operates under normal conditions we DO [almost] understand.

All additional matter consumed by the Black-Hole C-R accumulates inside a special volume, termed The Neutral Zone C-R. The unique property which distinguishes the Neutral Zone C-R is that the entire volume (or zone) exists in curved spacetime where the escape velocity exceeds lightspeed.  What this does is: It prevents any electromagnetic information from communicating, interacting, or exchanging "either particles or waves".

In short, it "turns-off" matter, or holds it prisoner, confined within.  This insulates and isolates matter, and establishes an information barrier, across which, absolutely NO INFORMATION can pass. In essence, the conditions there "Force matter and energy to do nothing" as long as this confinement-condition holds.

In a critical sense, though, this confinement is "THE KEY" to understanding the Black-Hole C-R, and making it both practical and useful to nature.  This forces the Black-Hole C-R to only be able to concentrate and accumulate matter, and emit nothing.  All of the positive electrical charge gathers-up, without reporting the internal conditions to the outside world.

This confinement also forces the Black-Hole C-R to increase it’s internal order [again?], or to decrease entropy overall.  This "forces" every Black-Hole C-R to being 100% efficient in re-concentrating matter and energy while it continues in this state.

This special condition also means that Hawking radiation, emitted from within, is totally prevented.  Specifically, no selection of virtual particles outside, communicated from the conditions inside, is ever allowed. [But, as an even-better consolation prize, it allows this universe to recycle matter and energy, refreshing them to restore conditions back to an optimal, “near-original* state”, after the confinement conditions are compromised, then some-to-all of the contents are permitted to explosively exit.]

(*When I say restored to "a near original state", I mean, pre-eaten conditions, and not "a post Big-Bang-like" state.)

What is remarkable is that this system implies that nature has already pre-established the plan to recycle matter and energy, using each Black-Hole C-R as another "tool".  It is just fortunate that the C-R theory has been the first to recognize and report on this suspected-role, and to publicly advocate it’s acceptance.

By doing-away with the possibility of the singularity, the C-R theory can easily then deal with explaining the sheer practicality of the Black-Hole C-R to nature.  That is more than a fair trade-off, to dump-off a problem, and gain, in trade, a couple of useful solutions at the same time. [Just like an old-fashioned horse-swap meet, where everyone is a winner, and each one trades-for the horse-type they need from someone else also “saddled-with” “the wrong horse” for their job.]

As an irrelevant aside, for a horse-pun: When the Jr. Mr. Ed was just a colt, and they led him away for his first day of horse-sense-training, he bragged to all-of his four-footed friends, "HAY, I’ll be back in a little BIT."

The next article I would like to discuss, on page 82, is Black Stars, not Black Holes, by Carlos Barceló, Stefano Liberati, Sebastiano Sonego and Matt Viser.  This article attempts to explain how quantum effects might prevent true black holes from forming, but allow dense entities called black stars.  Most of this article again deals with problems created by needing a singularity, and the C-R theory solution to that has already been covered above.  One of the huge problems with current theory is that, modern theory accepts that information {as both particles and as photons} devoured (or swallowed) by a Black-Hole C-R may be lost forever, even if it is re-radiated away.

The C-R theory totally prevents this "abuse" of physics, because nearly everything that goes in to a Black-Hole C-R, comes out later, but under semi-random exiting-conditions for timing and for accomplishing the release.  By it’s very nature, the C-R theory totally avoids any information loss, and that problem is permanently solved.  Although this article offers a black star as a radical alternative, it is not radical enough to totally solve the troubles.  This is where the C-R theory’s fresh insights might well help to let science finally solve the dilemmas.  On page 88, there was a chart with 3 other ways out of a (generic) black hole, but none of them will be as successful, or practical as the C-R theory’s solution. [I welcome home-reader’s comparisons here, and want you to evaluate “the competition” for effectiveness, practicality, and user-understandability.  This is where the C-R theory ideas should wipe-out the alternatives, and produce easy-to-understand results.]

As an Alternative offering, here is the C-R theory’s take explaining some of the key differences in the "brand-name" Black-Hole C-R. [this selection below is pasted-in from a supplemental section I wrote to be added-in somewhere to this milestone blog. This was as good of a spot as any.]

The central ideas for the C-R theory can help to guide the curious visitor through the entire process, covering the food-chain of "The Black-Hole C-R experience".  Although I cannot "prove" any of this in such a manner that science would accept it, I believe a simple view of the results of science’s own reports will contain enough hidden clues to eventually win-over the most hardened skeptic, given the time, after I can explain it all to them.

33% Success

One of the key ideas in standard thinking is that the generic black hole can be characterized on the outside by only 3 numbers; the mass, the electrical charge, and the spin.  Although the C-R theory agrees that all 3 properties play a part in nature’s plans, the ONLY one of those three parameters that can actually be measured externally from a Black-Hole C-R will be the mass.  The other two parameters remain hidden inside, isolated and insulated, unable to communicate-out their status.  NOTE: Those parameters are still there, but the "over-light-speed escape velocity" traps "knowledge of them" inside.  Knowing how curvature works will explain why the mass can be measured from the outside, without emitting anything at the speed-of-light.

Explaining the difference between a generic black hole, [which does not exist in the real world], and a Black-Hole C-R is the "claimed" use to which nature’s plans can put either one.  In the generic black hole, the mass is eaten, then trapped forever inside, unless nature can find some way to undo, repair, or disgorge, or ship elsewhere the dinners, somewhere along the line.  The main problem with this scenario is, there is no other known instance where nature is content to let such a vast quantity of valuable resources to sit idly by and remain untapped for so long.

Conversely, with the Black-Hole C-R, the entire recovery process is literally underway, making progress, after the "newly formed" Black-Hole C-R eats it’s first ionized proton.  Every charged nucleus that the Black-Hole C-R chows-down upon will contribute to the eventual recovery of ALMOST *100% of everything eaten. [NOTE: *It would be the full 100%, but normally the original central mass becomes closed-off to the external world, as soon as the critical threshold is achieved.]  NOTE 2: This closed-off mass inside continues to exist, establishing a concentrated base, of stable conditions, where the escape velocity only reaches (or exceeds) lightspeed at the outermost portions.  Most Black-Holes C-R, once established, should continue forever, but there may be some rare exceptions allowed, when the sheer violence of the mass-escaping is energetic enough to disturb the central mass, and possibly allowing that inner sanctum to once again, fall under the minimum threshold. {i.e., the Crab nebula might be a prime example of this happening – I was initially convinced that this would never occur, but nature "gently" showed me otherwise.}

There is much more to the process than I have covered here in this blog, but I have covered those aspects in earlier blogs. The most important point is: nature uses the very nature of the Black-Hole C-R, and it’s menu choices (by rejecting almost 100% of the negatively charged electrons at dinnertime) to accomplish the eventual recovery process.  Absolutely NOTHING goes to waste, even if it seemingly sits idle for what seems to us to be an extended period.

Stephen Hawking "optimistically" estimated that a generic multi-solar-mass sized black hole might radiate itself away into nothingness, using Hawking radiation, in something like 10100th years, if it did not eat again.  The C-R theory brand name Black-Holes C-R will accomplish the entire recovery process in a very small fraction of that timeframe*. [* Or, they will successfully recycle many additional times during that same-length timeframe.]

I try not to take credit for "inventing" the recovery process, but I believe I merely have been permitted to understand {or imagine or visualize, or uncover} the overall cycle in a human-friendly-to-understand manner.  Nature was far ahead of humanity in it’s grasp of the dilemma, and was not troubled by the nay-saying reported in earth’s textbooks, which never went into a Black-Hole C-R to make their overall assessment of matter’s properties.

The C-R theory contends that, the reason we, on the outside, do not sense ANY hint of the massive electrical charge, built-up inside of a Black-Hole C-R is: That is how nature designed the process to work, in the first place.  By separating the mass acquisition phase from the disgorgement phase, Black-Holes C-R continue-on, hiding the precise details on their internal workings, but leaving "easy" clues around outside for the gifted observers to pick-up on.

In this theory’s humble opinion, the reason that nature needs two separate inverse-square forces, both gravity and electromagnetism, is that they both behave quite differently when coupling-across the Schwarzschild radius {also, this border is often called the Event Horizon, by standard science}.

A Final Event’s [Horizon], A Name-Retirement Ceremony:

GOAL: To send the term – "The Event Horizon" – on it’s final, away-mission, into oblivion

NOTE: The C-R theory’s humble opinion is that the term "Event Horizon" is terribly misleading, and is a very bad name, unsuited to describe what really occurs at this boundary.  The conventional thinking is so messed-up with the timing, thinking about the appearance of a time slowdown or stoppage, that this misdirects thinkers from the more important properties featured at this interface: as a barrier to lightspeed-only photons, creating a total blockage to outgoing "report-attempts", and an incoming dinner’s wide-open gateway; all in combination.

I am extremely-reluctant to "honor" that term [the event horizon], even by the historical precedent, since using that name when describing this location obscures the true value as a one-way "valve".  The tragedy in the name is that the most important ideas are avoided, besides noting that the most-misleading notion often gets mentioned and credited, while the real reason for it’s importance is completely missed.

Repurposing or renaming {"the event horizon"} to a more useful concept:

A BARRIER to charge? – or -, A buryer of charge – [as in – “Can YOU Dig-It”?]

Nature’s "Plot" for Putting that [Electrically Charged] Matter to Rest {as in R.I.P.}

The C-R theory now claims it is the literal, physical presence of the lightspeed escape velocity, operating as a defined BARRIER to communication, that completely prevents ANY knowledge of the internal electrical charge from passing-through or coupling-out.

The totally different, indirect method, where gravity is created locally, on-the-spot, in response to the level of the geometric-like [or just metric] curvature, allows gravity to adjust the energy-holding capacity of matter in exactly the same manner as it would for any lesser sized mass positioned outside.  Thus, it behaves like "gravity" couples-out of the Black-Hole C-R, without anything physically exceeding "the speed-of-light" limit.

NOTE: To the best of my understanding, I have found nowhere else in science where this speculation about the performance differences ACROSS the Black-Hole’s C-R Schwarzschild radius, where the selective difference in performance from the TWO different basic forces [gravity vs. electromagnetism] as a possibility is mentioned, or considered, much-less exploited.  Essentially, gravity "couples-out" indirectly, yet electromagnetism is totally blocked, and confined inside.

The Black-Hole C-R vs. (generic) black hole difference – or

Pass it on, – or, – Pass on it? Why "gravity" passes-out, and charge is confined inside.

What should be a more obvious, and useful place for nature to APPLY this unique principle, than at the volume, starting where the enormous concentration of mass, is {deliberately?} gathered-together by nature, to make-up the Black-Hole C-R?

Part of what the C-R theory is trying to accomplish is to alert home readers to the idea that nature deliberately creates the exact conditions needed to completely recover (and recycle) absolutely everything that the Black-Hole C-R eats.  The C-R theory is trying to sell-you on the overall usefulness of the concept, and the simple practicality of the process.  STRONG HINT: If YOU could design such a cool tool, WOULD you?

WHY else would nature waste the time and effort into gathering-up so many huge concentrations of mass?  It should have been obvious from the start that nature is very fond of Black-Holes C-R, just from the sheer numbers of them discovered, so far.

Science seems closer than ever to noticing that the properties of Black-Holes C-R are intimately intertwined with the centers of most galaxies, but they still lack the comprehension for just how interconnected and intertwined the destinies of these two entities are, and for what goes on there.  The C-R theory’s knowledge of the effective behavior difference of the two forces was derived mostly using other concepts, rather than textbook-learning and "formula-worshipping-adherence" to the printed parameters.  It was based partly on the actual observations, and partly on intuition, using keen insight to achieve entirely different conclusions than standard science can obtain.

I know that the original idea, that the 4 forces ALL behave alike, because they started-off alike at the Big Bang, is held-on-to dearly, by the establishment.  They might tolerate some mild difference in a behavior being slightly tweaked, if the real world observations agree. My problem was, I needed more changes in more places than I could possibly imagine mainstream "science" ever yielding-to.

My solution, some 30 plus years back, was to write the C-R theory as funny, and to focus on reports about known phenomena, available in the literature.  The abundance of C-R like symptoms, narrated to cater to the interests of any possible home readers, yet with enough theoretical "towing-the-line" whenever that was possible, was my strategy.  Unfortunately, I still needed too many substantial changes to receive any level of consideration from the professionals.

I would yield to the claim that: Science is NOT supposed to work like that.  However, the results of "thinking this way" speak for themselves, and give me new and profound insights that simply cannot be achieved by any other method I have found.

I am trying to explain just how different this thinking is, and why there is a real difference-gap in understanding what goes on.

I cannot "prove it", but I can demonstrate it. I can try to explain it to you, and show just why nature might choose to operate in this manner.

I will admit that I had my initial doubts that something like the C-R theory process could possibly exist.  Wherever I looked, nature seemed to supply numerous instances where exactly what "only the C-R theory was looking-for", was "hidden" in the phenomena reported by voluminous articles and on-line web sites.

One of the greatest reasons to finally post these "crazy ideas" is the probability that at least part of these processes [or something like it] is occurring.  By advising home readers what to look-for, and showing them where to look for these phenomena, my hope is that at least some of you might also start to recognize these same patterns.

If the patterns I am suspecting ARE NOT THERE, and cannot be found, then no-one else should detect this commonality.  These ideas should flop-about like a fish out of water, unsupported by the facts.  If, on the other hand, the patterns are truly there, then ambitious home readers should find many similar items, by themselves, hidden in the reports, long before I have noticed them.

To the extent possible, I would hope to demonstrate some vindication, when others claim that they confirm that they, too, start to recognize these same patterns in nature.

Although I am not claiming complete relevance, the arrival of our 100,000th visitor, and more, to this web-site, is gratifying.  Whether it is yet to be regarded as a vindication for this site’s ideas, or as a simple passing curiosity, to be briefly laughed-at, then lumped-in with all of this world’s other follies, and discarded as irrelevant; at least I can say I tried to make a serious difference.  All I ask is to simply try to understand what I am proposing, without objection, then see if it works for you.  Then, if it does not work as promised, reject it.

All Alone on a "Treasure Hunt", Finding Treasure Where No-One Else was Looking

[My "Treasure" was All "Junk" to Science: Unwanted, Unsought, Unloved, and Discarded]

Over the last 30 some years, there are so many supporting "finds", that have been collectively ignored by the mainstream, that gave me real hope that I am on the right trail, or have connected-in to something, system-wide.  There seem to be so many unclaimed treasures in existing reports, that mainstream science wants nothing to do with, but which strongly support the C-R theory’s ideas.  The results were too great to keep silent about. If I can inspire any of our home readers to continue their search, to try to seek ALL available evidence, and to LOOK-FOR easily-recognizable patterns, which have been glossed-over, ignored or dismissed.

If you sincerely can find no other instances of abundant stray electrical charges, massive electrical currents, huge magnetic fields, layered-bands of-gas-flows, gathered-up and streaming in light-years-thick gas flows, lightning, auroras, x-rays, gamma rays, cosmic rays, and the like, then I probably AM crazy, and self deluded.  If they have a cause, a commonality, and are evidence for a whole system of interactions, still deliberately unnoticed by "science", read-on.

If, however, you too start to recognize that, this theory is not as crazy as it should be, and you too start to recognize these "obvious" patterns, then: welcome aboard.  Rest assured, these patterns have real CAUSES, at least from the C-R theory’s viewpoint.  That is why I try to take the time in each blog to patiently explain some of the differences in what one EXPECTS to find, and to train potential observers WHY to look where the C-R theory recommends.

If, by any chance, the C-R theory is wrong, [and not just wrong because “the book says so”], I want to find it out as soon as possible.  For now, I can accept if I can at least get potential "believers" to first, recognize some valid points, and then, to start-to consider them.  Eventually, science WILL come-around to the C-R theory’s views, if nature has anything to do with it.  So much evidence will accumulate, that the obvious connections will become even more apparent with my every new blog.

Almost every month, the C-R theory is rewarded with new observations that seem to be tailor made, ONLY to fit this theory.  Some of the observations find conditions and phenomena that only the C-R theory could rejoice over.

A new study of the Black-Hole C-R , SGR A*, at our galaxy’s center concluded that almost 99% of the HOT hydrogen mass entering the accretion disk escaped, and that the Black-Hole C-R there was a messy eater.

Before reading about this study, I would not have believed that the other parts of the hydrogen gas’s nuclei, like the protons and any neutrons, can also escape unharmed and uneaten.  I will admit that this is a new finding to me, and it did surprise me in this case.

Normally, around most Black-Holes C-R, science confuses the presence of the radiating energy from the fleeing electrons for the whole mass’s ability to wiggle-away.

In this new study, the ability of 99% of the HOT hydrogen gas to also escape intact, was something unexpected.

It should be obvious that the only things light-enough to escape from the Black-Hole’s C-R voracious appetite, and possessing the zippiness, added-in from self-repulsion to propel large groups of themselves away at 99.9% of lightspeed, are freed electrons.  Science cannot yet accept that the dual streams of high-speed, self-collimated jets are pure electrons, [which ONLY the C-R theory expects], magnetically self focused into narrow beams, despite the evidence in plain sight.  Instead, they want to imbue some energetic photons, released at the Schwarzschild radius, with the spontaneous-creation energy to then power the creation of charge-balanced, mixed-pairs of electrons and positrons (or anti-electrons), and have this electrically neutral energetic combo somehow try to fit the bill and beam-away.

A Half-sphere of influence, – or -, just shucking-off?  Getting the C-R theory’s "spin"

Some time back, I remember seeing archival black and white film footage of people in an amusement park fun house, maybe in the 1920's, attempting to sit-upon spinning wooden (polished or waxed) half-spheres.  As they did so, they took a path where they ended-up sliding down from the top of the sphere, then, on the flat, waxed floor, scooting away from the scene, gliding-away on their keesters, linearly sliding-away from the center of the spheres.

90 year-old Jet Lag, -or –

Re-applying the same principle, demonstrated-in that film-clip from about 90 years ago

It occurred to me, that, if one reversed the footage, but then kept the ejection path velocity constant afterward, one could nicely mimic the jet’s path that each "orphaned" electron would take, if they were shucked-off and discarded, in bulk, just as the C-R theory proposes.  "Recycling" the applied lesson from that film-stock might provide one some insight into what does go on at many (if not ALL) central massive Black-Holes C-R, with respect to the creation and formation of the two jet beams. 


Again here, my main goal is not to antagonize others who do not yet understand science the C-R theory-way, but to help as many home-readers as we can to accept the simplest, most-logical possibility: using and exploiting the very built-in properties of basic matter.  Why not think like nature does, and USE what is already at hand, with the maximum efficiency, in the simplest way?

I am simply trying to show how one can use the C-R theory to test for the likelihood that demonstrates that these processes ARE already occurring, if one knows where to look.

Once again, thank you for visiting this web site.  I hope that the discussions and the new ideas help YOU understand what is occurring in this universe in a more logical manner, AFTER you have visited our site, and tested the ideas.  I would encourage you to return again, often, as there is simply too much new here to take-in at just one sitting.

Your questions and comments are welcome.  Your skepticism is expected, as normal. It may take 5 years or more for you to fully accept or appreciate some of the concepts I have tried to showcase here.  There may be many more simple discoveries available, awaiting someone to understand them.

If you have found this web-site useful or thought-provoking, please let others know.

Jerry Reynard, Last modified, September 27th, 2013

11,021 visits to this page.