C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

November blog: A Contest, a Funnel diagraml follow-up, a big shake-up, and…

I would like to welcome the first time visitors to this website and to this blog.  I would also like to welcome our 58,000 th visitor, and those who have joined whoever it was, before and after.

It’s About TIME, for a contest!!

I have decided to create a contest to name the property I have described, within the C-R theory, but never yet named.  The property of mass inside this universe is unique to the C-R theory: the idea that mass increases it’s energy very slightly when lifted-up, and decreases it’s energy whenever it is lowered into a greater gravitational curvature.  NOTE: This time-varying property totally ceases inside a Neutral Zone C-R , yet it also increases, to it’s maximum value, at the location of “The Great Attractor”.

The stakes:

It is not very often that someone, (especially, an individual), gets a chance to name a basic and fundamental property of the universe.  GOAL: To creatively, scientifically, and if possible, punfully describe this property, creating a new, or recycled (from some relevant but parallel-like process), scientific term to describe it.  You may base this term upon a Latin or Greek word, or derive it from any concept common to humans, (within the current or past POPULAR media), or related to time, quantity, filled-up–to–empty, memorable and fairly easily pronounceable.

The final-decision judgement will be the author’s, but I might take into account sentimental favorites, supported by the most individual responders-in (and not spam-bots pretending to be humans).  I have not yet made up my mind, but I reserve the right to think up something special, and compete with everyone else.  If a suitable existing term has already been well-established within the scientific literature, it may win by default.  STRONG HINT: Naming the property after yourself is NOT a good idea.  Bribes, or commercial naming attempts with extravagantly large financial sums attached may also win, (but naming rights will not transfer again if a commercial takeover tries to replace the original winner’s name).  Tobacco brands, alcohol, recreational drugs, casinos, and similar pursuits also need not apply, regardless of the amount proposed.

COMMENT: If I create a new term, but I like one submitted by someone else better, and I think it will enhance the long term validity of the C-R theory, I will chose the best choice.  NOTE: I would expect this new term to need to survive for hundreds of years, so nothing too ephemeral, or short-term, will be selected.

NOTE: I do not actually know HOW the masses increase, or change their real-time activity level.  It could be that the speed of light changes slightly with every location, and that the increased interval of energy-activity just makes the mass greater.  It could be that the mass acts something like a sponge, gathering-up, or leaking out quantities of energy as the energy either becomes available, or is forced-out.  It could be fractal in nature, and actually be an increase or decrease in the exponential-fullness, or the dimensionality (many-dimensions, like a hyper-volume), with the mass expanding or contracting to fill the void, varying something-like the increasing lengths on a slide-rule, but in 3 or more dimensions.  It might be an analog property, both continuous and smooth, or it might be digital, quantized in small units, varying by adding-in Planck-sized loops in increments, something like either adding additional pages to books fills-up a library shelf, or adding and removing coils onto a garden hose, or making the hose wider or narrower, affects it’s delivery of fluids.

Maybe, none of the above methods will work, but something even more unexpected, or profound, will be ultimately found to be the cause.  Whatever method it uses, mass somehow increases it’s energy-worth when it is lifted-up, and it loses energy-value as it falls into greater curvature, freeing-up energy in proportion to the acceleration-energy liberated as kinetic energy.  HINT: Mainstream science DOES NOT recognize this property, yet, but the C-R theory claims it already exists.

Therefore, I have decided it is time for this unknown property to have a scientific name, worthy of the concept.  I could simply create a name for it, and stick everyone else to just live with the results.  But, as a reward for visiting this web-site, and considering the merits and drawbacks, if any, of the C-R theory, I am opening-up the nomination process to EVERYONE who visits, and I will even consider user-group creations, too.

As a special reward for reading the C-R theory from now (whenever the first-posting takes place), until 12:00:01 AM, EST, April Fool’s Day, I am offering all C-R theory home-readers the opportunity to participate in helping to select the BEST-possible name this fundamental NEW property.

This might be the last time in this new Millennium that a single individual gets an opportunity to name this fundamental property common to ALL matter in this universe, unless a pre-existing term is found that is already claimed by someone else.  That I know of, no other theory makes a claim that anything like this positional-variant property exists, so I will state my intent to select from the best-of whatever is submitted. There is no age limit, there is no dollar value (yet) to the prize, but there is an equal opportunity for someone to name this particular property.  I will also consider naming the property for some prominent scientist deserving of this honor, who has not yet been awarded a basic unit of measurement.

All items submitted will be considered as available, without further compensation*, (*but which could be lucrative for future media interviews).  Both my personal preferences, to make the C-R theory better, and my web-master’s input will play a substantial role in picking the winner.  Copyrighted or trademarked items will not be considered without the owner’s consent or financial backing, if the naming rights are sold to a highest bidder.

Good luck to all potential contestants.  Please enter using the Naming Contest blocks, featured prominently within the beginning line(s).  In case of duplicate entries, the first one submitted will be considered the winner, if that entry is selected.  My first blog after April Fool’s Day, will announce the finalists, and any creative runners-up which were unsuitable for science, but which will amuse someone.  Home readers will be invited to select their favorite candidates, and why, until the final selection is made.  A large number of home readers favoring one special entry might sway my final selection.

I may post some of the most creative suggestions before the official deadline ends, to solicit early audience favorites.  If no suitable entries are received, the deadline could be extended.

Thank you to all who decide to participate.

The reward is to be one of the few humans, in this new millennium, to name a fundamental property of this universe, if such a property exists.  HINT: The author is very fond of the C-R theory, so something that reinforces it, honors it, or supports it, and has a catchy appeal, has an inside track.  Suitable punfulness and playfulness will also contribute strongly towards a winning selection.  In fairness, there is also a submission limit to two word-candidates per person entering.  Web-aliases will not be allowed, winners must be who they claim to be, and not just fictional account-holders. [Groups or clubs may enter one entry each, but must use one human as their group’s representative.]

Although it is not necessary to win, you may also write anything, from 100-500 words, to argue the case for, or support your favorite candidate, even if it is someone else’s idea.  NOTE: I have NOT already picked a winning candidate-term, waiting in the wings.  I reserve the right to compete, and to try to win fairly.  I will judge the competition, if any is submitted, closing at one second after midnight, Eastern Standard time, April 1 st , 2013, to narrow-down the field.  If there are a top 5 picks, I will give the C-R theory’s readers at least a few weeks to a month to express their desires, too, and to recommend their favorite picks from the list.

 A simple Funnel Diagram, or (pour performance?)

A Funnel Diagram

In mentioning the last (month’s) blog, I covered some aspects of the simple funnel diagram, and discussed why viewing it holds some clues to understanding the differences found in the C-R theory.  NOTE: In most of the conventional theories, this type-of a view is the only one presented.  ALSO NOTE: This is not a picture, but a graphic representation of how the shape [or slope?] of spacetime is made to curve by the presence of the mass further inside.  Many standard diagrams are made much taller and steeper as well.  In conventional theories, the well would proceed down nearly to infinity, to represent the “fictional” singularity, which is unavoidable in their scenarios, but is needed to conform to a Newtonian explanation and expectation.  I could pun here that leaving out the well leaves well-enough alone.

Note: In the first graphic, everything in the gray area represents the properties of spacetime outside the Black-Hole C-R , or the volume of space where the escape velocity is BELOW “c”, or below lightspeed.

To throw conventional expectations upside-down, why not see the problem of the singularity from a different perspective.

pre Black-Hole

In this blog, I would like to cover some of the more surprising aspects, and additional insights gained by inverting the standard funnel diagram, and noticing that the diagram, when viewed in this manner, now shows us much more clearly how the escape velocity increases with closeness to the outer edge of the Black-Hole C-R .

NOTE: The diagram is usually plotted in a logarithmic fashion, and not linear.

If we check the inverted funnel diagram, before the spout forms, (featuring the yellow section, only shown as a bulge), [the spout is included in the third graphic], we see that the curvature outside was like just before the central mass went critical, and became a Black-Hole C-R .

Next, in the third graphic, we show the inverted funnel diagram for a well established Black-Hole C-R which features the inverted spout, or a caldera-like top ridge.

acove "c" level cone

Once we take that diagram, and highlight where the escape velocity is slightly over lightspeed, in the red cone-precipice, in our fourth graphic, that suggests a new pun for this section of this blog: Above “c” level. When we notice the inside of the cliff-rim ring, featured in the center of this inverted funnel diagram, this is where the next graphic comes in.  The gray colored slope, creating a logarithmic cone, represents everywhere outside the Black-Hole C-R where the curvature is ALSO below “c” level.

fall-off block of text

This shows how escape velocity falls off inside a Black-Hole, to
“0” at the center.

One should note, this normally hidden volume, illustrated by the red ring at the center of this fourth graphic, illustrates THE ONLY volume of the Black-Hole C-R where the escape velocity is actually above the speed of light, [hence the pun: Above “c” level].  All of the remaining mass, hidden further down, in the cone section, inside the Black-Hole C-R , or located under this section, lies inside the Active Zone C-R , and has standard properties for matter that scientists would recognize.  NOTE: EVERYTHING further inside of this rim-ring, just like the gray cone in the first graphic, sits where the escape velocity is back, BELOW “c” again, [see the block of text], just like spacetime outside of the Black-Hole C-R .  Therefore: The energy-content of the matter located there, anywhere inside the center, is always GREATER than the energy-content of the mass “trapped” inside the Neutral Zone C-R .  We can also take the cone in the text block, and drop it inside the red ring, and this can show how curvature decreases again inside, approaching the center of the Black-Hole C-R .

It is worth noting that the entire Neutral Zone C-R , that “neutralized” portion of spacetime, indicated by the red ring, all interactions are turned-off and/or prevented.  That natural prohibition from any active interaction holds the key to understanding just how the Black-Hole C-R works, and why nature is so fond of them.  The cone, in the text block, represents a visual plot of the escape-velocity’s properties in the Active Zone C-R inside every Black-Hole C-R .  Everything inside this volume is at less than “c” level escape velocity, down to “0” at the center.  Compare understanding that concept vs. the singularity, if you dare.

NOTE: Conventional theorists would maintain that nothing like that condition occurs, and that the singularity, deep, deep inside, was the only choice*. [*It would show-up as a sharp point or a spike, way, way above the cone section, if this diagram was based upon that idea.]   The theorists are also “stuck” with the difficulties of understanding a singularity, that violates all of the physical rules that they understand.  They wonder about mass entering the singularity being tunneled into another universe, or even into another time, completely vanishing.  They have no real understanding, just questions and unknowns.  I welcome those purists, who abhor singularities, to re-consider their rejection of the C-R theory ideas, and note just how simple and elegant this idea is, using easy to understand concepts.

TIP: If this funnel diagram was not inverted, the cone in the text block would also be inverted to match that orientation. {it would resemble a dunce cap, for instance}

I believe I am clear enough in the description of what I expect each alternative to act-like, and that the C-R theory alternative presents the closest possible parallel to what we actually see occurring.  If you choose not to believe me, but wish to stick with the majority’s beliefs, the theoretical field is ripe with speculation, and wild imaginings.  One thing all those goofy scenarios are short-on is reality, and matching their wild expectations to any documented real-world observations is rarely done.

Whenever I describe the situation from a C-R theory view-point, I am always careful to throw in everything I can think of or find that would seem to match reality, and reconcile the true strangeness “by conventional standards”, of what is seen.  What is remarkable is just how specific I can be in noting what I expect to see, by the C-R theory, and in identifying just those extreme conditions that are actually found. {multiple positive ionizations, enormous electrical currents, cosmic rays, or ionized protons, huge magnetic fields, polarized light in every EM band frequency}  What I try to do is give a reasonable explanation of just why we find the exact conditions that have been reported in scientific observations, and then get them to match the expected outcome, when using the C-R theory ideas.

I believe it is more because I believe I KNOW what to look-for, and I know what I expect to see, that I can point-out those very special conditions to the home reader, because they have been noted, by me, for 30 some years.  I can also point-out that those same conditions I describe are outrageous from a conventional theory, because they have no mental script playing out how such strange things can happen.

What I do have is 30 plus years of my observations, with the added benefit of understanding the C-R theory, and being able to fit it in, and bring the observations to life.  The question then becomes, for the home reader, are my descriptions fictional, and based only upon my deceptions of what is occurring, where I try to wildly imagine a scenario where the phenomena we find matches what I can creatively lie about?  On the other hand, maybe I truly do understand key aspects to the situation at hand, because it seems to fit, like a glove, to what the C-R theory expects.

What I am trying to sell the home-reader on is either my “quality fiction” based solely upon the creativeness of my imagination, but restricted by reality, or a description of a logical process, that fits-together in an organized, coherent fashion, obeying natural rules, with the same types-of processes re-occurring almost everywhere we look, in this universe.

What the home-reader gets to do is to read all of the newest reports, and any of the reports from the last 50 or more years of observations, and decide whether those reports do match-up closely, or, only very loosely correspond with reality, or if they totally disagree with everything I suggest.

If science is involved in predicting one’s expectations, using a theory, does the home reader feel that they gain some confidence in understanding this universe, when they take the newest, most unexpected findings, and try to fit them in, both to a Big Bang scenario, or a C-R theory scenario, or find some other theory more closely matching those conditions that they find?

If I did not have a good degree of confidence, I would never have posted this theory, and my observations, publicly, for the world to see.  If I was merely speculating, I would have crouched my ideas in the most slippery, weasel-words I could find, using very tentative language.

Let me be perfectly clear, the all of the following items I have chosen to feature, such as abundant, energetic free electrons, confined, neutralized, mass-sorted positive charges, and non-thermonuclear based energy-output solutions, ARE CRAZY, by conventional understandings.  This begs the question, though, if it is just such conditions that seem to be found, over and over again, almost everywhere we look, then WHY has SCIENCE NOT NOTICED it?

Conventional theory simply recognizes that, if such conditions WERE FOUND, they would have to admit that their science does not have a clue as to WHY.  HINT: Only ONE theory does EXPECT these strange outcomes, and guess which one?  (HINT: You are reading at it’s main website, if you have not guessed so.)

Part of my goal is to provide as reasonable an explanation as I can create to explain just why these hallmarks of the C-R theory processes seem to show-up in unexpected places.  If the scientists HONESTLY report their findings, then, do those findings actually support the C-R theory, or some other theory?

There is an old saying, outrageous claims demand outrageous proof.  Now, DO I have BOTH?  I do know that I have not looked at every report, and I have not seen all the available findings.  I have seen enough that I think I have a valid case to be made in the C-R theory’s favor.  It is possible that some degree of old-fashioned coincidence is involved here, with just enough mysterious findings available to match some cherry-picked observations, in some “one out of a million” cases.

If, however, nearly every report contains the same recurring evidence of the same-type processes going on, indicating “extreme” electrical imbalances as the norm, would you not want to find our more about the only theory that claims to understand it naturally, to answer the WHY?  I would be, and have been so.

As a reality check, the C-R theory either is, or is not, supported by the evidence.  I do know that mainstream science has totally rejected the C-R theory’s scenarios as impossible, and they do not intend to re-consider their rejection at this present time.  If I am “off my rocker”, and totally crazy, then the evidence should be overwhelming to disprove it.  If the case is correct, or at least, more-closely matching reality, then some degree of professional re-evaluation of this theory might be called-for by those home-readers who do feel that THEY have started to understand the claims, and believe in the C-R theory.  (That does not make them right, but it would be a good indication that there is something worthwhile there to be considered.)

I do not have a way of tabulating numerical answers from our readers, but I would rhetorically ask, have you made any attempt to find reports in available literature, not mentioned by the C-R theory, to see if they support or oppose the ideas?  Follow-up, how many have you looked-at?  How many matched the C-R theory’s expectations?  How many clearly dismissed any evidence of conditions described?  How many were neutral, with no evidence either way?

A Cosmic Raise?

Things to notice: Science does not understand any valid mechanism that would selectively energize and excite positive charges almost exclusively, while virtually missing a chance to equally energize most of the negative charges.  Science does not believe that a Black-Hole C-R rejects virtually ALL electrons when consuming it’s dinner, and leave behind the evidence of the leftovers almost everywhere.  Science does not believe that a Black-Hole C-R could build-up enormous concentrations of positive charges, immediately inside a Black-Hole C-R , without showing any evidence of the accumulated charges outside the Black-Hole C-R .

Science does not believe that supernovae are primarily powered by the catastrophic and cataclysmic release of excess, confined positive charges, being suddenly freed.

Science does not accept that a Black-Hole’s C-R Neutral Zone C-R could or would be exempt from the second law of thermodynamics “by a legal technicality”.  They would maintain that the generic black hole slowly leaks-away some of its mass through abysmally-slow Hawking radiation, taking on the order of 10 100 years to radiate-away a good portion of it’s mass or energy.  (and that also requires assuming that the generic black hole stops eating anything else during that entire, extended time period)

What I am trying to show is that there is both a method to my madness, and an involved plan to circulate and refresh matter and energy, by using the special natures unique to the Black-Hole C-R , but not to the generic black hole.

Only the C-R theory claims to understand this entire universe as a package-deal, bundled together, and working as an ecologically-viable complete system.  Whether I’ve bitten-off more than I can chew remains to be seen.  There is no “lack-of-ambition” that the C-R theory can be accused-of.

If the entire C-R theory is an elaborate ruse, and an artful deception, then I should have to continually re-invent the lie, with an ever increasing level-of complexity, to keep the whole thing from unrevaling.  If it is true, then expect some limited revisions, as I understand more of the previously unknown aspects of the complete system better, but also expect unexpected benefits to “crawl-out-of-the-woodwork” and fit-in to the overall plan and picture, for free.

If you do not believe the C-R theory, and it is simply too great a leap of faith on your part to accept it, for now, that is normal for any new theory.  What is uncommon is for any new theory to be given the wide-array of unexpected “gifts” from nature that seem to fit-in to the plan.  That simple observation leads me to believe that I am actually on to something true, and monumental, and I am not continually creating new figments to cover-over the holes in the old figments.

A few blogs ago, I casually mentioned that in the future, some observant C-R theory reader might come upon a realization that could make it possible to test some aspects of the C-R theory, using only available evidence.  That time might have come.

In one of the last few blogs, I mentioned that I just recently re-understood my original concepts in deciding that a free-falling ball would only fall to the CMB, or core, mantle boundary. [because, that is where the curvature is MAXIMUM]  What I had not realized, until then, was that the center-of-gravity for the earth-moon SYSTEM, also known as the barycenter, might also play a part in affecting just where a ball (or any other mass) would fall to.

While it would be true, on the average, for the entire lunar month (one complete orbit around the earth by the moon) that “on the average”, a ball would try-to fall to the CMB, the actual, final-resting position of the ball might vary with the orbiting of the center-of-mass of the earth-moon system, added in, as well.  This is something I had never recognized or considered until recently, I believe it was this September, 2012.

I decided to report this new thought to my home readers, and let them know that I had a revision in my original thinking, but not a downright reversal, or overthrowing of the concept, but an important addition.  I was simply realizing that I might have oversimplified my original thought process, [I was too earth-centric in my thinking], and I wanted to set the record straight, even if it made me look foolish, again (or just more foolish than I originally appeared).

While I was thinking about the items I placed in the last blog, it occurred to me that I might have been handed “the smoking gun” so to speak, or the “killer app”.  I realized that a prediction made in an earlier blog, that a sufficiently creative C-R theory reader (or author) might discover a way to either demonstrate, or prove part of the C-R theory hypothesis.  That stated that a dropped ball would only fall to the (averaged) CMB position, as this is the location where gravitational curvature is MAXIMUM, and also the location where the real-time clock will clock the slowest.  Also, because there , at the CMB, was the most downhill location, energy-wise. (It is also the most curved location on earth, hence, the slowest-running timeframe, too.)

Where I may have erred: If I proceed to add in the realization that the minimum energy spot might move, or oscillate, or be sweep-around, as the center of the earth-moon’s system’s mass changes it’s location, [the barycenter], as the moon orbits the earth.  When the moon is overhead, that minimum-energy location might rise above the CMB, and when the moon is on the other [far] side of the earth, that “fall-to” location might be below the CMB by a correspondingly similar distance.


The “killer-app” realization is that the buoyancy of mass underneath the earth’s surface is not always constant, but changes with density, influenced by heat and temperature, and location.  What then triggered the lightbulb-AHA moment, is that, as this “fall-to” spot sweeps around, oscillating above and below the CMB, the prime locations, where all mass tries to fall-to, changes with it.  This means that some very powerful additional torques could be generated as the lighter, warmer magma pockets, and colder-denser rock-substrates attempt to re-position themselves.  This constant action could trigger or spring-free earthquakes, based upon this additional stress, unanticipated by ANY OTHER THEORY OF GRAVITY.

Since the record of earthquakes is, essentially, public knowledge, and the seismographic data is available on-line, there is now a way to use that existing data and compare the results to see if that extra torque, generated as the sweet-spot is dragged-around, over-under, around, and through (to one side or another), triggers earthquakes.  While my math skills might not necessarily suffice, there are individuals and organizations continually competing for any advantage in predicting, in advance, when “the big ones”, [the most massive earthquakes], might occur.

While I cannot guarantee success, it is a new idea, that never has been tested before, but which does have a testable-logic to it, and could be calculated using existing equations, if this additional insight is now added into the mix. [If the new method would work for showing, [postcasting vs. forecasting?], the increased likelihood of PAST earthquakes, whose timing and approximate locations are now known with documented certainty, that same method could also be applied to look for future earthquakes, using present data.]

An Added “Twist”

I do know that no other theory of gravity even expects a free-falling mass to “only” fall to the location of the maximum curvature, which should have been at the CMB, or Core, Mantle Boundary, much less to have this new extra factor added on.  What is certain is that this new, unexpected sloshing-around, or displacing of buoyancy on a 3-dimensional, or circular, semi-regular basis, can add-in torques of enormous proportions.

Just think of your experiences when attempting to hold a balloon or a life jacket underwater, and remember the results you obtained.  Then, multiply that buoyancy by a factor of billions or more, and you might sense something-like what this unexpected factor could add-in to geologist’s reasonings.

As an aside, consider the possibilities of the loss of floatation in seawater that can occur when large accumulations of methane clathrates, or ice-like chunks of methane gasses, frozen solid, under the pressures of the oceans, suddenly warm-up, and thaws.  This can release substantial quantities of methane gas bubbles from deep-below the sea.

That “sinking” feeling:

I have seen some small-scale simulations in water tanks where model ships could be sunk, or severely destabilized, when the buoyancy of seawater decreased due to bubbling streams of gasses released from far below.  HINT: The volume of seawater displaced was the same, but the weight of the water decreased.  The weight of the water displaced by the ships hollowness decreases, and the ship then must ride lower in the water, because more volume of a less dense seawater-gas mix is now needed to displace the ship’s weight.  If this process is robust enough, the ship can ride below its waterline, and head straight for the bottom.  Some TV program’s speculations are that some of the mysterious and sudden ship disappearances, as in, the Bermuda Triangle and elsewhere, which occur without warning, might happen when this entirely natural, but uncommon phenomena is unleashed.

Fizzy Logic

There are several killer-lakes in Africa, where something similar can happen, when dissolved carbon dioxide, built-up from years of leaks from volcanic vents is suddenly freed, releasing huge volumes of heavier than air carbon dioxide bubbles, which quickly displaces most of the available oxygen in the air.  Anyone wandering in to the volume of invisible and odorless CO 2 gas pockets, released from cold layers of carbonated water at the lakes lower layers of one of these deadly lakes, before it can disperse, will simply suffocate.  Sometimes, tens to hundreds of victims have been found mysteriously suffocated around these lakes.  There may be other lakes worldwide where this CO 2 release has occurred over the years, and silently killed dwellers by the lake.

A Stressful Situation [and not WISEcracks]:

Now to turn back to buoyancy, if large plumes of hot magma pockets underneath earth’s crust try to “float upwards” and displace heavier, colder surrounding rocks, these can cause flows to occur that help to drive the continental drift, and push mountain ranges upward.  Over a longer-term, they power earthquakes, and create more stress on rock formations, or release stresses that can weaken existing fractures.  Although the moon’s influence on the tides and the oceans is well known, to a lesser extent, there is movement of rocks caused by the moon’s pulling on nearer continents and mountains.  With the added stresses, located further down, changing where semi-viscous rocks attempt to flow-to, on a monthly cycle, added in to the simple tidal-based rise and fall, this new addition could be ” the straw that breaks the camel’s back”.

One way to envision this might be to consider an air-filled balloon, stuck inside a rotating cement mixer, where the cement is too thick to allow the balloon to just rise-up quickly, but only allows the balloon to slowly move upwards.  If the barrel rolls quickly enough, before the balloon rises to the surface, the cement is continually repositioned, and the direction of up, to the balloon, is continually changing in the wet cement.  Until the rotation is stopped, the balloon is continually jostled-around, stuck somewhere in the middle.

Will the extra drive cause some circulation, not anticipated anywhere else, to add-in enough extra stresses and strains from the displaced buoyancy, to help to explain what triggers those first stress-fractures, the root cause of major earthquakes?  The answer will either be yes, or no.  The question becomes, will someone out there be creative enough to try to test it, to try to gain an advantage. [If the method is successful, gaining a valuable prize might help to motivate someone to first put the idea to the test.]

What is most interesting about the new idea is that the data needed to prove or disprove the hypothesis is already available, from many public sources, archived away for many past years.  Geologists already know that there is a major discontinuity in some waves at the CMB.  Could the shape and modulation pattern of that discontinuity also change as the “falling-point” sweeps around?  That would be a “whole-new ‘spin’ on the idea”.

One thing is certain, this idea has never been tested anywhere else before, as no-one has ever considered this as possible..  Whether it becomes a “wild-goose-chase” or a significant new finding is unknown for now, but the idea seems worthy of testing, if only on a limited scale.

Do the known, warm, less dense blobs below, and the colder, more solid, more dense agglomerations above continually war with each other for “top” position, as their relative positions change?  Can they decide: Where to “float-to”, as the moon orbits the earth and drags-around the barycenter, the mutual center-of-mass of the earth-moon system?  Now, a new reason to suspect that evidence supporting this battle might exist in the geological seismic record becomes all the more plausible.

Remember that both the earth and the moon are “kind-of” free-falling as a bound-pair, around the sun’s much greater mass, so even through the sun is much more massive, it’s pull should not introduce further “local” complications under earth’s surface.  But, if “dragging the center-of-mass” of the earth-moon system, the barycenter, above then below the CMB, jostles unstable masses to try to shift their positions, and factors-in enormous torques generated by endless rotational-floatation attempts, those energies can be significant.

After-all, just remember how much fun you have had dunking air-filled-mattresses, beachballs, or lifejackets, then suddenly releasing them to surprise unsuspecting swimmers at pools or rivers, but with billions of times more volume, although a lesser difference in densities, of earth’s subterranean magma chambers, subducted continents, and uplifted [lighter-weight] mountain ranges.

HELP WANTED: We seek your comments and suggestions to make this site better for everyone.  Just use the comments section, and tell the C-R theory what you think, ask questions or suggest new ideas.

Again, I would like to put in a plug for home-readers to take a short, game-like test, called Are You A Human?, and use the results to allow posting of your comments.  So far, the program has been 100% effective reducing spam, but no legitimate comments seem to be trying to get through.  I do test the program regularly, to make sure the test is quick and simple, but not easy enough that a spam-bot can get the hang of it.

I do read all of the comments that come in, and I will try to either reply to the most relevant ones, or add something to a blog to take care of the issue, or explain something.

Just yesterday, the web site welcomed our 58,000 th visitor.  I would like to thank all who have visited.  Again, the ideas found here are unique, and cannot yet be found anywhere else.  I do not expect anyone to be convinced on their first visit, but I would expect that it would take some time for home readers to accept the concepts.  I wish I could make it simpler, or not need so much to be different, but I must go with what I think nature has shown me.

That should do it for this blog.  Thank you all for visiting.  Please consider asking questions, or sharing your comments, using the comment section at the end of the blog section, or at the bottom of the home page.  It requires taking a short game to prove you are a human, and not a spam-bot.  It usually takes me under 10 seconds to produce good results, even if I don’t usually comment afterwards, since I already wrote most of what was on the page, in the first place.

We are closing in on the big, 60,000 th visitor, expected shortly.  I have wanted to do something special to celebrate.  These last few months have seen a great increase in overall traffic, and visitor numbers.  Either many are dropping by just to laugh at my ideas, or some are finding these ideas useful, thought provoking, or at least challenging.  If you can find any phenomena that seems to disprove any of the C-R theory ideas, I would also like to hear from you.  I would like to know if I am wrong, so that I can revise any areas that must be revised, or start looking somewhere else, if what I have written proves to be wrong.

I would like to offer home readers an opportunity to share any items you have found that would seem to support any of the C-R theory ideas.  I know that I do not read everything, and there might be many relevant items listed in other languages, that I have not searched for.

It is quite possible that there are simple, but major items out there, that have not yet occurred to me, but which are suggested by your reading of the C-R theory.  I seriously want some home reader(s) to get the credit if they can help to extend the relevance of this theory by finding items that have not yet occurred to me.

It is also possible that I might have oversimplified some items, or that I have missed layers of interactions, where other forces also contribute significantly.  I do welcome any possibility of simulating the C-R theory ideas, or testing them in a laboratory, wherever possible.

I also welcome contributions from videographers or animators, comparing results from the C-R theory encounters with Black-Holes C-R vs. generic black holes.

Feel free to co-adopt any of these new concepts that you can accept, and for now, reject any which you cannot yet understand or accept.  I expect you will need time to fully consider these ideas, and I doubt my abilities to instantly convert everyone, right away.

I am confident that given time, once these ideas take root, and I can show enough people what to look for, and where to look, some will start to grasp that these ideas might have some merit to them.  If it takes 5-10 years to consider these ideas, and mentally test their results vs. the real-world observations, this universe should hold off long enough to allow it.

There are so many absurdities in the Big Bang scenario, that just do not make sense, so there are many individuals looking for a sane and reasonable alternative.  I want the C-R theory to be your theory of choice.  I have tried to keep it simple and understandable, and not require quite as many contradictions to common sense as our competition needs.

New Pun: The C-R theory would rather give you a bigger bang for your bucks (and it is still free).

I have tried to pattern the C-R theory concepts against known cycles already used by nature, in other systems, and suggest a commonality, and a sense of purpose.  I have tried to show home readers where there is an intelligence behind the seeming chaos, and that there is a plan that is already in effect, to keep this universe operating smoothly, without the need for human intervention.

I have tried to show that, rather than being a ravenous monster, lurking at the center of a galaxy to attack unsuspecting humans, the Black-Hole C-R is an integral part of the complete system package.  The C-R theory suggests that Black-Holes C-R are the most creative tools in this universe.  They are simply too useful to do without them.  I believe that nature has given us (not so) subtle clues, hidden-in-plain-sight, everywhere.  I have shared what to notice, and why this solution is important to your understanding of what is going on.

I invite you home-readers to be co-discoverers, and co-explorers with me.  I want others to notice what I have noticed, or to at least, have an opportunity to sense what nature is attempting to do.

I will caution readers that, the mainstream science does not yet accept these new ideas, and will not accept the C-R theory’s ideas.  I will try to argue why you might wish to consider these new ideas, and why they offer a closer, real-world-fit, to the observations that have already been noted, but not understood.

By all means, please reject these ideas if they do not work, or suggest results contrary to what is actually seen.  However, if these ideas do fit nature’s results better than standard theories do, I would invite you to accept them, too.

If you think these ideas are improvable, please give it a try.  Just include the observations that would lead you to consider where these ideas fall short, and suggest pathways where improved concepts could fit-in.

If you wish to take credit for your ideas, or sell the results elsewhere, I invite you to establish your own web-sites, and post your results there.  If you can convince me your ideas have merit, or, at least, deserve further consideration, and you wish me to post them, here, I would potentially consider that, too. [I would maintain the C-R theory’s standards, if editing was necessary.]

If you wish to critique the C-R theory, or can point-out potential weaknesses, I invite readers to do so, here or elsewhere.  I would be willing to link to any serious web site that discusses these ideas, pro or con, as long as I can understand it.

If you can build-upon these ideas, and take them far beyond what I consider “reasonable”, but which only you understand, feel free to attempt that, also.  If in the next 30 years or so, you can exceed what I think I have achieved, and share it with the next generation, I wish you well.

Jerry Reynard, November 22, 2012