C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

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

Although I said a lot in my last blog, and elsewhere, about the C-R theory’s unique outlook on a “new” experiment on gravity that anyone can do at home, I feel that the masses will ignore or disregard the experiment as not really “new” or “relevant”, but just a play on the semantics, or a clever twist on our perception, and a “lie” as to its applicability.

Let me state that this is a fundamental new insight, and really “throws a monkey wrench” into the commonly held outlook.  Yet another national magazine has included the “drop clear-through the earth” in 42 minutes scenario in another magazine article this month, and a certain host of Nova on PBS repeated the segment on jumping down into a hollowed shaft through the earth, again.  In the cartooned scenario, he accelerated until he reached the center of the earth, then decelerated until he reached the top of the shaft on the other side of the earth.

At least one responder wrote in to YouTube that they couldn’t take seriously any theory that didn’t see gravity Newton’s way, and they probably aren’t alone.  Let me re-describe the situation, as I understand it, and as I notice it, from a “ different” perspective, and try to show why the “new” idea isn’t nearly as stupid as conventional theory assumes.

My favorite “curvature analogy” is the orange juice squeezer, the old-fashioned kind, that has a lower half-ball, where the orange sits, and a hollowed-round cup, which sits over the orange, mounted to a metal lever (from the pre-plastic days).  Usually I would “half” the orange, and just squeeze one half at a time.  As one squeezed the (half) orange, the juice would flow-out, and collect in some container.  At the start, the flow of juice was roughly proportional to the force exerted, but at the end, when all the juice had been squeezed-out, there was a point where nothing more would come-out.

This juice squeezer is really a very good analogy for the way that “gravitational curvature” squeezes energy from matter.  In essence, we take some real potential energy (as in real-time), and warp matter (very slightly, on earth) to where it experiences less “real-time”.  You can put away your stopwatches, though, as the difference is way too small to detect.  On earth, we lose approximately 1 part in 1016 per meter (for a drop), or gain as much, if lifted-up.  The C-R theory contends that it is this incremental “time-loss” that EXACTLY equals the amount of kinetic energy gained by matter (as speed, from acceleration).  NOTE: This “proposed-source” for the energy-exchange is extremely important, and if one does not notice this, one will be hopelessly mislead.

In the standard Newtonian formula, the (expected) acceleration is the almost same whether the acceleration is measured from above the earth’s mass, heading downward, or dropping down a shaft towards the center of the earth.  IMPORTANT: Newton never claimed to UNDERSTAND WHY matter did this, just that it could be summed-up (via an early version of calculus which he invented for this purpose).  The C-R theory will yield the point that, from above the earth, gravity does work very close to the Newtonian formula, and nearly succeeds all tests one could try.

It is important to note that NO-ONE has ever tested how Newton’s equations actually work for mass staged far UNDER the earth.  There is NO valid experiment or test which has been performed to test or to verify Newton’s equations from below earth’s crust.

Even more important: Newton’s standard formula is FLAWED, big time.  That is because, the density of matter, on earth, INCREASES SUBSTANTIALLY with depth, by MORE THAN the inverse square dropoff expected in gravitational strength.  The calculated values (expected, but never actually measured on-site) show that gravity should be approx 10.61 m/(sec)2 at the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB), a sleight increase from the 9.81 m/(sec)2 tested on earth’s surface.  (The value at the surface does vary by location, tides, angular displacement, position of the moon, the bulge at the equator vs.  at the poles, and below-surface mass accumulations or variances, among other possible error sources.)

NOTE: In simple words, on earth, “gravitational curvature”, or the strength of gravity, increases with depth, at least until the core-mantle boundary is reached.  From there, the value drops off nearly linearly, to “zero” (or more correctly, minimum), at the center of the earth.  {To be more nit-picky, the center of the earth-moon mass actually circles around the earth’s exact center.} (Technically, as long as we have the moon around, the value at the center is never exactly zero, there.)

Now, to return to the juice-squeezer analogy.  Where is it that a mass on earth is the most-curved (most squeezed)? Only at the Core Mantle Boundary.  The curvature there is some 9% greater than the value at the surface of the earth, even though the depth is about half way to the center.  Note: At the center, matter is much less curved than it would be even at earth’s surface.  That means, it’s real-time (clocking) rate there is FASTER than ANYWHERE else on earth.  That means, the mass there has GAINED energy if it can arrive there.  The C-R theory contends that, one (i.e., YOU) would have to add energy, or come-up with additional energy, to “allow” any mass to “fall” to the center.  NOTE: This is directly the opposite from Newtonian (formula’s) expectations.

Even though Einstein came-up with the idea of curvature telling mass how to behave (or move), he MISSED the idea that CURVATURE superimposes a “preferred reference frame” over matter, in direct proportion to “how much that matter is squeezed”.  This means that the more curved spacetime is, the more it “squeezes” real energy from matter.  This also means that, if you intellectually “throw-away” or “discard” the collective influence of mass (which Newton DID when he tracked gravity), YOU WILL get WRONG answers.  (WHICH EXPERTS do, by the way, get wrong answers.)

When we did the experiment, and tossed a ball into lesser gravitational curvature, the ball always returned back into greater curvature, without fail.  NOTE: In this experiment, the C-R theory maintains that we do actually simulate the behavior of a ball tossed into lesser curvature (whether UP or DOWN ), from the Core Mantle Boundary.  NOTE: In the experiment, the ball WAS consistent, and always returned from lesser curvature back into greater curvature.  SCHOLARS NOTE: Nature has revealed her hand, and shown you what she WILL DO in this instance, whether or not you believe it.

Does it not start-to make THE MOST sense that curvature will cause the ball to fall to the least energy point? It should seem incredibly stupid that curvature would cause the ball to fall from minimum curvature (way above the surface of the earth), into greatest curvature, and then still be able force it back intominimum curvature again? That belief is inconsistent with either logic or the experiment.  On the other hand, the ball could fall into greatest curvature, and remain there (or return after passing-through, if it had excess kinetic energy).  THAT would be consistent with OUR experiment!!!

By NOT appreciating or recognizing the real contribution to “gravity” from curvature, mainstream science has either NOT LEARNED or NOT NOTICED an important new lesson.  The sad part is, that the answer has been hiding in plain sight for many, many years, and has never been noticed (until the C-R theory came along).

The simple idea of curvature is not necessarily complicated, but appreciating it’s influence is NEW.  All that is needed is that matter responds to curvature, and the greater the curvature, thegreater is matter’s response.  If that is recognized, then HOW can ANYONE believe that curvature will cause the ball to “fall” FROM MAXIMUM to minimum curvature? If you can SEE it that way: that a BALL “falls” only to MAXIMUM curvature, you will start to comprehend what the C-R theory has uncovered, and pointed-out something really new (and totally unexpected).

In short, Newton was partially right.  Then Einstein was even more partially correct, but he still missed a major point.  Now the C-R theory comes along and points out a better, more consistent way to envision the “workings” of gravity.  Someday, someone better informed may find-out more of the flaws inherent in the C-R theory, and eliminate still more of them.  If one can learn from everyone’s past mistakes; that is better than holding-on to the wrong belief for the sake of consistency.

I do not expect people to embrace the C-R theory viewpoint overnight, and I can empathize with those who believe the other way (I used to be in their camp, so to speak.) If you choose to laugh at the C-R theory, it was designed for you to do so, and it is tolerant of differences.  For now, I would be satisfied if more people would simply consider the C-R theory view, and acknowledge it, and leave some possible “wiggle-room” for their viewpoint to change at a later date.

It is no “accident” that gravity is the most poorly understood of the major forces.  What I’m trying to do is show anyone who will listen or read it; where to look, what to look for, how to test it, what the differences will be, all the new advantages gained, and the new ideas that might help one to understand what is really going on in our universe.  IF the C-R theory ideas are wrong, the errors should compound, and they will become plain over time.  IF the ideas are right, then expect to learn new things, and find-out new ways to understand something so very basic that it has never before been noticed.

A Simple Plea:

If someone out there just questions, why should I believe (or accept) the C-R theory, when “everyone out there” has already bought-off that nothing in our universe happens like the C-R theory says; I might say “Would a return to simple, understandable, common-sense-logical thinking, restoring conservation of energy back to it’s former “glory” status, and a better fit to reality appeal to you? {To which, the majority still replies: “Not if we have to change our view (back) to the C-R theory way”.}

What is really amazing is that normally “conservative” scientists, who greatly resist innovations to the status-quo, have so thoroughly jumped-aboard the “Big-Bang started”, “accelerating-expanding” universe idea.  {With no-known energy source to give the universe the “ cart-blanche unlimited” increases in energy needed}, with no known reconciling or accountability, or “penny-pinching frugality” (from Conservation-of-energy) to reign-in our universe’s getting bigger, faster, more filled-up, at an ever-expanding rate, “party-atmosphere” { The Big Bang started universe needs: Free energy, available all the time, at no cost to you.}

The C-R theory instead contends that: Our universe is fixed in size, fixed in energy content, infinitely old, still very dynamic, does recycle with 100% efficiency, looks exactly like the universe we actually see (right now), fits-in everywhere as the C-R theory expects, but behaves much differently than standard theory comprehends.  Our universe is always EXACTLY filled with enough mass to EXACTLY close-off space (not a coincidence, just a continuation of ongoing reality, or a maintaining of the status quo).  Conservation of energy is always strictly obeyed.  {The Second Law of thermodynamics is continually “foiled” in it’s attempt to run energy downhill for everything.} The Second Law is allowed it’s supremacy on “normal-acting” matter inside Active ZonesC-R, but is still limited by the overall design of this universe.

The interesting thing is: The C-R theory-type universe looks exactly like our universe does, it violates no known Laws (other than a “mere” technicality with the Second Law of Thermodynamics), it is simple to understand, and requires NO complex anomalies, no amazing coincidences, never needs “something from nothing”, and uses simple re-understanding of reality to accomplish everything.  (That should make it a better theory.)

Sadly, mainstream science is so intent on believing the Big Bang type scenario, that regardless how many convolutions are needed, or near-unbelievable anomalies are needed for that scenario to make sense, they refuse to give-it-up.  Interestingly, by the C-R theory, science in the pre-1900’s may have actually been closer to the real truth about almost all of our universe’s basic properties (except for the huge overall size) than our “better informed” {but highly misguided} modern-day science in 2009.

NOTE: CERN over in Europe, the “parent” organization of the LHC, has sunk $10 Billion into building the LHC, specifically to “prove” the Big Bang scenario, and to gain new insights into our universe.  IF that scenario is FALSE (as the C-R theory claims it IS), almost ALL of that money is wasted.  We may find a few new sub-atomic particles or particle-resonance combinations, but there will be NO NEW fundamental understanding of how our universe works.  (Because it JUST doesn’t work that way.)

C-R says that our universe is closed-off, fixed in size, infinitely old, essentially unchanging (but still actively dynamic, in an everyday-activity sense), neither increasing nor decreasing in energy content or size, in short, a complete, working ecological system.  Newly added, matter and energy are continually recycled in cataclysmic cycles (but with 100% efficiency), which renews and refreshes matter-energy within this “closed package”.

ANALOGY: If you have a set of equations that predict that your favorite bowling ball will collapse into a singularity, instead of remaining perfectly stable from day-to-day, I would suggest you check your equations, and replace them with better ones.  If those same equations predicted your bowling ball was expanding with expanding expansion, and continually gaining mass, quite possibly* they would again be in error.*(Does THAT situation sound familiar?) What the C-R theory says is that our universe is a completely closed-off system, the inside “Active ZoneC-R” of a larger Black-HoleC-R, and already is designed for perfect stability.

Conventional theory, using the “old-obsolete” Newtonian ideas of gravity, cannot understand why such a “closed-off” stable system doesn’t simply collapse.  {They may require a dark-energy to exactly balance the gravitational attraction, or oscillate unstablely.} Nature has already “planned-ahead”, and given-up on the collapse idea, and choose the “perfect stability” option instead.  Only the C-R theory has a simple explanation WHY this option is really much more reasonable.  It is a natural outcome from understanding HOW curvature causes (and automatically stabilizes the structures created-by) gravity.  This concept SIMPLY cannot be understood NEWTONIANALLY.  The Newtonian equations do not apply in this case, and will lead one to wrong conclusions if they are used.  (That they do work well in most situations we are familiar with {above the earth’s surface} is granted, but they will fail when the effect of curvature upon matter is sorely disregarded.)

Sorry for the “rant”, but I do wish to try to get this simple point across.  YOU need to understand the action of curvature upon matter to be able to understand the real behavior of gravity.  Conventional science is heading for big-time embarrassment when this simple idea will be found to be correct.  I am trying to gently point that out to anyone who will listen, and pay attention, and simply check the facts.

READER HELP DESIRED: If you know of an existing term or concept that you think the C-R theory should incorporate (or be aware-of), or that would help clarify the C-R theory ideas to readers and viewers, feel free to write-in to suggest that I incorporate those terms.  I have tried to keep the terms simple, and limit the new terms to a very few ideas, but there may be limits to this.  I will try to create videos and diagrams to explain some of the C-R theory ideas, and I do try to show where the real differences lie, and why they are important.

NEW TOPIC: Stick with ONE good one.  The C-R theory suggests using and understanding ONE and only ONE universe (our dear home, too), and forget about trying to understand or solve equations for all of the 10500 competing (possible) alternate multiverses “science” is trying to pawn-off as necessary to understand what we have.  The C-R theory DOES NOT need these “extra” universes to explain anything happening now, or any known phenomenon.  Our universe may be much SIMPLER to understand, if you KNOW how to look at it.  (If you don’t, then nothing you observe makes too much sense now, or seems to fit into a logical pattern.)

If you have tried to understand “our competition” {i.e., the Big Bang} (and probably failed), PLEASE give the C-R theory a fair chance.  Try to visualize the C-R theory’s simple descriptions and processes, and give it a fair shot at explaining everything that we do see, almost everywhere.  If that doesn’t work for you, then reject it and try elsewhere, again.

In upcoming blogs, I am hoping to comment on at least 30-40 known phenomenon or observations which have a direct tie-in with KEY C-R theory concepts, but which mainstream science is simply baffled-by.  If the C-R theory was right, I could imagine scoring a hit with 2-5 items in the real world, and feeling triumphant.  With the C-R theory, I’ve got a huge list (and there are many other similar occurrences which I have not recorded individually) of items which feature connections (or tie-ins) that ONLY the C-R theory can appreciate, and say: “LOOK!!!, It’s here in plain sight for anyone to see”.

I am hoping that by the 30-40th time, “Oh, it’s just a coincidence “, sayings; that maybe a few people will start to take the C-R theory’s predictive values a little bit more seriously.  Maybe they will also note “a trend” forming, that these items will all have C-R theory-based implications as a guide to understanding what is going on in our universe.  IF the C-R theory is correct, then one will see WHY these things would be so, and they will start to make sense.  The home reader will realize interconnections and subtle-workings of a “system” in nature that have been completely missed until now.  I want YOU, the home reader to say: “Oh, NOW I see why it would do that!” by the time you finish the list of new items to notice.  Will you see the pattern? Can you connect the dots? Will you anticipate FUTURE discoveries before they’re made? If the C-R theory ideas are right, and YOU choose to use it, you will!!!

Last modified September 21, 2009