C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

Date: May 11, 2014

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