C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

April Fool’s Day Blog

I would like to welcome our 42,000th visitor, and by the time this blog is posted, we should be midway to our 43,000th visitor.  I appreciate your taking the time to check out the ideas at this web-site, and I hope you get some useful ideas and concepts here that cannot be obtained anywhere else.

Even though the C-R theory has had great success lately in attracting readers from an international perspective, the front portion of this blog will be devoted to a return to my “first love”, or the humorous part of the Comedy-Recycling theory.  The later portion of the blog will be addressing whether most of world, and science too, has already been “April-Fooled” for the last 80-90-some years.

[This next part, the April-Fool’s Day part of this blog, is a science-based humor section could be skipped by international readers.  NOTE: This section below IS NOT intended for literal translation into other languages, and is based on common (American) English-language and word-usage items.]

{International readers may resume reading after the partial line of asterisks, at the heading: A New Take on an old experiment}

The Humorous part of the Blog:

How is the Schwarzschild radius similar to a good baseball strikeout pitch?

The first is a “throne for a curve” ball, and the second is thrown for a curveball.

Biochem lab joke:

Q: What is red and green and goes around and around at 100 MPH?

A: A frog in a blender.

Q: What has 18 arms, 18 legs, catches flies, and weighs a billion solar masses?

A: A supermassive Black-HoleC-R with its own baseball team.


If there ever was a C-R theory fan-club, what could be it’s motto?

We really “dig” Black-HolesC-R!!!

Imponderable question of the day: Will a helium-filled balloon still float in the vacuum of space?


Q: What would the C-R theory’s critics say was the biggest difference between the C-R theory’s author, and a navy ship after a fiery chili dinner?

A: The critics would say: “The navy ship should wait a day before they need to have their “head” examined.”


The “less than intelligent man” went into a hardware store and asked the nearest sales clerk for her advice as to which measuring-tape model would be the best one for him to buy so he could measure the length of a day.  He said that she simply talked him out of the purchase, because she said he was just too “ week-minded” to use any of their store’s models to measure the length of a day, and thus, his measured results would have to be divided by 7 to determine it correctly.

[Joke multiplier: I could pun: The same man also said, he “ longed” for the good old days, when math was simpler, before this new math stuff took over.]


Q: Why do freed-electrons leave their respective Black-HolesC-R in two near-light-speed jets?

A: Because propeller planes would simply take too long (and propellers will not fly at all in a vacuum).


A riddle:

Why did the “less than intelligent” person use miles of rope to wrap-around a small lake several times?

Because he wanted to create a tied-pool.


A Magic Question?

Q: How do you make our entire universe “just disappear”?

A: Believe in the Big Bang, and it already did it for you (before its beginning).


Q: Why is mainstream science like a cosmologist stuck inside a Black-HoleC-R?

A: Because both of them are still “left in the dark” about Black-HolesC-R.


Why is a Black-Hole’sC-R Neutral ZoneC-R like a story by Edgar Allen Poe?

A: They are both excellent “tales of whoa/ tales of woe”!!


Redefinition of a geography axiom: At most modern-day shopping malls now, the shortest distance between two points is at least twice as long as it should be.


Photographers always take a picture of my bad side.

A colleague: Oh, and which side is your bad side?

My outside.


Good advice from the Jester: It is better to keep your mouth shut, and let people suspect you are a fool, than to open your mouth, and confirm their suspicions.


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

If a clock could talk, what would it tell time?

…… {Chose one}:

A: You said the same things yesterday, verbatim!!

B: That wasn’t what you told me a minute ago.

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

D: I’d like a second’s opinion.


Jester: My favorite days of the workweek are the ones that are already over.


Imponderable Question (for kids to think about at your leisure):

Does rain get yelled-at by it’s mom when it goes outside to play, and gets wet?


What is the Jester’s favorite movie title ?

Work is a Four Letter Word


What is the Jester’s favorite Bob Hope movie line?

“When it comes to facing danger, brave men run in my family.”


The Jester’s favorite book joke:

“Beside a dog, a book is a man’s best friend.  Inside a dog, it’s too dark to read..  … Groucho Marx


A college question:

What happens if you flunked the test of time?


Jester: If we are talking-about humor, the salary that I earn by laying here on the top of the home page as the C-R theory’s icon is a big joke, but, not one that’s funny to me.


A Riddle for C-R theory understanders, only:

[NOTICE: This riddle is only funny if you understand the C-R theory:]

Riddle: What has 14,000,000,000 arms and 14,000,000,000 legs, and sleeps inside a Black-HoleC-R every night?

A: [All-of] Humanity!!


[Jester speaking]: Riddle: Why am I (the Jester) almost-like a Black-HoleC-R?

A: Because we each specialize ingesting (a pun on: in jesting).

Pun: A Black-HoleC-R is a mass-sieve body. (Pun on: massive)

The Jester’s Fish Story (especially for this April Fool’s Day blog)

The Jester just told me about this fishy encounter, a tale from some time ago, on another, earlier, April Fool’s Day, also occurring a few years back.

The Jester always takes-off every April-Fool’s Day, because it is his favorite day of the year.  He decided to have some fun, and take a vacation day, and do some early-morning fishing at the same time.  The Jester noticed that he could not find his fishing hooks, so he decided he would just be lazy and tie the worm to the fishing line.

Being lazier still, the Jester also decided, rather than to have to awake even earlier on his day off, just to dig-up some worms, he would simply break-off a few worm-sized tree-branch twigs now, then spray paint them in a worm-like color.  After the paint dried, the Jester then figured he could just coat the fake “worm” with some glue on that morning, so that the fish would just stick to the fake worm when they came-by to check it out, and save the Jester from needing to go buy new fish-hooks.

Now the smarter home-reader out there would say, but hey, when the glue on the fake worm gets wet, the glue will dissolve or get waterlogged.  Well, in working for the C-R theory like he does, the Jester is a pretty smart fellow, so he also figured this out, too, so he also took along a can of waterproofing spray.  He thought, after he applied the glue, just coat the fake worm with waterproofing spray, so that the glue would not get waterlogged.

When the morning to fish arose, the Jester was prepared, and had his fake worms ready, painted, dried, coated with fresh, wet glue, and properly waterproofed.  He tied the fake worms to the fishing line, threw them in, and started waiting for the fish to notice them.  He hoped the fish would come close enough, and then just get stuck to the glue on the fake worms as they swam by.

Now I am no good judge of the Jester’s plan, since I am not a fisherman, and I cannot say that the plan could have ever worked properly, but here is the report I got, straight from the Jester, just as he told me.

The smaller fish were not that interested, so they just swam by without giving the fake worm much notice.  After ten minutes or so, the slightly larger fish, those who had been around for at least a year or two, swam by and came in for a closer look, but they were not that much interested, either.

Within a half hour or so, the larger fish, those that had been around for many years, finally got curious, and started coming-by.  I believe they were far too wise to fall for the Jester’s simple tricks, but that’s when a funny thing happened.

The older and larger fish just started to find this situation extremely funny.  They just could not believe that this stupid human, (dressed in his full-color Jester’s regalia, too), had been foolish enough to think they would fall for his plan.

The older fish had been around long enough, and they knew how the fishing “game” was supposed to be played.  Some of them had probably been caught and released several times, before.

I suspect that the older, wiser fish could even read a little-bit of some of our human minds, just enough to know what was expected of them, and that is how they had lived so long, without getting caught, and gotten to grow as large as they were.

Anyway, these older fish just found this fake worm, tied on to the line, coated with worm-colored paint and wet glue, then waterproofed, just so darned funny that they could not contain themselves without giggling.  After the bigger fish all started laughing, the smaller ones finally caught-on to the joke, too, and joined-in.

From the beginning of time, there probably have not been more than a dozen cases of fish ever laughing so hard, before (or since).  None of these encounters have ever been officially recorded for history, so this blog is the very first written account I can find.

Even though they did not lunge at the fake worm, and they were never in any danger of getting caught, as the Jester had planned, the larger fish just lingered-around and started laughing so hard that this created a noticeable disturbance on the surface of the water.  All-of the swirls and the turbulence from the laughing fish stirred-up the water, almost like a bubble bath.

Well, the Jester noticed the gathering of these huge fish down there underneath the bubbles, and he thrust-in his fishing net right behind them.  Normally, these fish would dart away as soon as they heard the net splash, but they were all just rolling around in a giggle-fit, and half-paralyzed with unstoppable, contagious laughter. [And this danger from the net was briefly unrecognized by these fish, who had never been so thoroughly entertained before.]

When he lifted the net, the Jester found at least 3 huge fish gasping for their gill-fulls of water, but in our air, and all emitted that very distinctive “fish belly-laugh” sound.  Now, being the consummate, professional entertainer that he was, the Jester noticed that those fish were actually laughing “convulsively-hard”, and not just gasping for oxygen, as the normal fish-catch would do.

Needless to say, even though they were laughing mostly at his set-up, and not at a true punch-line, which is a comedian’s “adrenaline rush”, the Jester did not have the heart to eat them.  Even though they would have been a prized catch, and they were some pretty-tasty types of fish, according to the Jester, they were also one of the better audiences of hearty-laughers he had ever had.

Now, a professional Jester recognizes and respects any appreciative crowd, and takes a liking to them, {even though they could have been his dinner, in this case}, and he simply could not treat that crowd so badly, by eating them.

So the Jester went hungry that morning, and let those fish go back into their river-homes, but sternly warning them that he would not be quite so sentimental on another day, if he ever caught them again.  Ultimately, the Jester considered releasing them a small price to pay for the unique experience so few human fishermen have ever had, of witnessing the oldest and largest fish responding in a hysterical laughter-fit.

Anyone who has ever seen fish in an aquarium knows they are a very tough crowd to amuse.  Even to make them just crack a slight smile, much less to get a good guffah out of them, is unlikely.  To have seen 3 of the biggest of them in such a high state of merriment is still one of the Jester’s most prized memories of all time.

When I mentioned to the Jester that I was looking for some new funny stuff for my April Fool’s day blog, he said that my request just reminded him of that situation, from an earlier April-Fool’s Day, some years ago, and he volunteered his account for your home-amusement.

Now I know that some fishermen are prone to exaggerating their stories a bit, and as a professional comedian, too, the Jester might have been tempted to go beyond all reasonable expectations to stick with the pure, unadulterated truth. He swears that this is all true (but he did have both fingers crossed, and winked one-eye a couple times), so I will let the home reader decide on his veracity.

While I do not profess the above story is necessarily, “science”, it is an April-Fool’s Day story with an April-Fool’s Day theme, as told by the C-R theory’s personal Jester.  Since it was funny to me, I threw this story into this special blog.  Nevertheless, it is a fitting fish-tale for April Fool’s Day, (and, perhaps prone to a fisherman’s embellishment), and thus, the Jester’s account of his earlier April-Fool’s Day fishing trip, made it into my blog this year.


******************* International readers, resume here:




While this experiment is not particularly difficult to perform successfully, and it is not necessary to precisely record all of the details, it is cheap, and easy to duplicate from any accessible location, anywhere in this world.  Technically, many of us have performed this experiment; but without considering a unique observation from the C-R theory, you may have missed the most important NEW idea on it, that I will cover now.

HINT: Nature may have hidden an important clue, right under our very noses, that almost no-one has noticed.


Toss a ball (or some other object that can be safely tossed) into the air, in a safe manner, where it can be caught or recorded, over and over.

Notice that the ball will travel skyward, slow-down, stop, then drop back down.  The observant reader will claim, what is so unique or revolutionary about that.  That is what I will try to tell you, now.

From the C-R theory’s point-of-view, it is gravitational curvature at work here, and not an actual “force” of gravity.  Let me try to explain the difference in reasoning.

From the Newtonian way, gravity is somehow generated in response to the net-sum of the masses of two (or more) objects, as an action-at-a-distance.  As it has been tested, from above earth’s surface, Newton’s theory is solidly accepted, and held in high regard.

Later, Einstein postulated that what we thought of as gravity, was an (after)effect of mass, called curvature, as a property of spacetime, which caused an effect on nearby masses, that made gravity work.  Where the C-R theory is attempting to advance the understanding, this “effect” of gravity, is actually caused locally, and it mostly affects each mass, locally.  This “effect” is not produced (or emitted) from far-away, and then radiated-in, say, like electromagnetism.  Curvature changes [or warps] the “carrying-capacity”, or the ability of matter to hold energy, allowing matter to store more (or absorb more) energy when lifted-up, and/or to liberate energy from a local mass, if that mass was allowed to fall an additional amount.

A very important result from this new way of thinking is that the immediate effect [acting as gravity], directly changes the internal energy-worth of the local mass, at the closest location to where the energy was either added or freed-up.

The biggest difference in this form of “gravity” is AFTER the masses’ energy has been lowered.  At the very extremes, when mass falls into a Black-HoleC-R, it’s energy is lowered as far as is physically possible, and it cannot ever go any lower. {That mass is in a state where it cannot lose more energy.  This change takes place immediately- inside the Schwarzschild radius.  This confines the minimizing effect exclusively to this Neutral ZoneC-R region.  [Essentially, like the outermost skin-layer of the Black-HoleC-R.]

Two masses already inside two Black-HolesC-R are already at their lowest possible energy-state, and each cannot be lowered any further by being “eaten-again” by the other.  This also keeps one Black-HoleC-R from attracting (and eating) another Black-HoleC-R, a unique prediction that can only be recognized by using the C-R theory.

At a lesser extreme, this means that a mass stored in less-extreme conditions will ALWAYS fall to the MAXIMUM amount of curvature (if possible), but NO FURTHER. (A mass cannot continue to “fall”, back into a more-energetic region, where curvature is less.  It must either acquire more energy to be allowed back into lesser curvature region, or stay put, in the most curved portion-of spacetime.)

Where this concept would meet the challenge would be, if a mass on earth could drop down, from the surface of the earth, into a hypothetical shaft drilled down towards earth’s center.  Whereas almost ALL standard textbooks ASSUME that Earth has a constant density throughout (for ease of calculation purposes), THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

On earth, since density increases substantially with depth, this causes gravity to slightly increase, not to decrease, until the Core-Mantle-Boundary (or CMB) is reached.  From a gravity of about 9.81 m/sec2 on the surface, gravity slowly increases to a value of 10.69 m/sec2 at the core mantle boundary, at approximately 2,886 km below earth’s surface.  Only at the CMB, is gravity on earth at it’s MAXIMUM value.

Even though density increases slightly after the CMB is reached, earth’s gravity then drops off to zero* at earth’s center.

NOTE: (*The actual earth-moon system’s center orbit oscillates around this point at earth’s center, in the moon’s direction, but never actually resides at the center.  There are also other masses, like the sun’s and the other planets, which keeps the value for curvature somewhat above zero [for the value of gravity], at earth’s center.)

Will YOU “fall” for it?

Will YOU “fall” for it?

I will not disagree that, from “above earth’s surface”, the ball’s path coincides with, and always falls and accelerates, down, towards earth’s center.

What is in question here is: Is that acceleration to the center ALWAYS the case, or just an “accidental” coincidence when the experiment is only performed from earth’s surface?

While the C-R theory agrees that Newton was brilliant, and his theory of how gravity works has been enormously successful when measured from above earth, there still arises the question, was it right in ALL cases.  Einstein replaced certain portions of our understanding of Newton’s gravity with his theories of special, then general relativity, and stated that curvature tells the mass how to move.

What was never considered, back then, was this.  If one checks a reliable source, the C.R.C. Manual, (not related to the C-R theory), one will find that gravity actually INCREASES as one goes towards earth’s center, at least until we drop down to the Core Mantle Boundary (or CMB).

NOTE: Almost all high school and college textbooks oversimplify this fact, and use, as their only example, an earth with averaged-out density overall.

NOTE II: Earth’s density does not just increase linearly, but does so in a stair-step fashion, with regions of increasing density, from the crust, the mantle, and the outer core, then the inner core, further inside.

Whereas most textbooks “pretend” that earth’s gravity drops off and decreases smoothly and linearly to zero at earth’s center, in reality, gravity increases slowly, below earth’s surface.

What the C-R theory claims is: that as the gravity (or curvature) increases, that is really the ONLY reason that causes the ball to continue to fall.  Only the C-R theory claims that, if the gravity (as curvature) did not increase, the ball would be stuck at the surface, where gravity “should have been the greatest strength”-by the textbooks.  [It is not so, again, because earth’s density increases substantially with depth.]

What the C-R theory wants the home-experimenter to keep in mind, and to recite, while performing this experiment is: “When we throw the ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature [or strength], the ball loves to visit, but cannot remain, and it is always compelled to return back into GREATER curvature”.

The real question that the C-R theory wants the home-reader to address is: Will this same situation, faced “down there” also be the case, once the ball finally arrives at the place of maximum curvature, (at the CMB)? What to consider is: What do the results of your experiment suggest? How many times have you performed this experiment, and how many times has the ball always “fallen” back into greater curvature?

If you are totally honest with yourself, this experiment demonstrates (but does not prove, by itself), that curvature causes a ball to fall to the greatest curvature, every time this experiment is performed.

What the C-R theory is suggesting is that nature has already given us humans the answer, in plain sight, for anyone to test-out.  If you do not believe me, that is OK.  What I ask is: will you believe the results from your experiment? Even if you are not necessarily “won-over” right away, what I am attempting to show YOU is that there IS, BECAUSE OF YOUR EXPERIMENT, a valid scientific reason to question the “standard answer”, using ONLY the results of this experiment.

NOTE: At only the CMB, curvature THERE is maximum.  If you were to throw the ball UP, towards the surface of the earth, you would be throwing the ball back into a lesser curvature.  HOWEVER, that situation ALSO occurs now if you were to throw the ball down, towards the center of the earth.  In that situation, again, since the curvature ALSO decreases going down towards the center, WILL the ball AGAIN return back to the maximum curvature? This is the dilemma!!!

NOTE: “Humanity has NEVER tested the situation of tossing a ball into a lesser gravitational curvature from BELOW earth’s surface.  That I know of, only the C-R theory has “mentally tested” this idea using a new understanding of “gravity’s cause”, straight from nature, by applying previous results directly from this simple experiment.  As far as I know, only the C-R theory predicts that this result will occur in this particular situation.

If you still stick to the strict, Newtonian view, I would humbly ask the home reader to re-perform this experiment over and over, but this time, with a more-open mind.

If you cannot accept it, for now, that is expected.  If you believe you already KNOW the answer, without having ever actually tested the result, “down there”, then you have missed the entire point of this exercise.

NOTE: Both of the theories would rule-out that the ball returns back to the earth’s surface, by accelerating back-up, on it’s own accord.

What the C-R theory is attempting to do is to show the observant reader, for the first-time, an experimental reason to question the “standard wisdom”.

Another area where the entire world might have been fooled is The Big Bang.  The C-R theory claims that we live inside a closed universe, which is exactly filled, sealed-off, perfectly stable, and is not expanding.  I will not fully go into all those areas, but I will mention that they are covered elsewhere within either of the C-R theories.

Briefly, I will mention that the C-R theory claims that the redshifts found in this universe, “way out there”, are almost all gravitationally caused.  Just last year, scientists placed an atomic clock about 1 foot (or 33 cm) higher than a second atomic clock, which had been synchronized.  The clock that was slightly-lifted ran faster, by an incredibly small amount of time, which science can now accurately measure.

What the C-R theory claims is that something similar, but far more drastic, takes place inside this closed universe.  Not only does time slow down to almost a crawl in all directions, but there is one (and only one region), called “The Great Attractor”, where time runs faster than here on earth (as is evidenced by it’s limited blueshift).

The simplest possible explanation for both readings, simultaneously, of redshift at a distance, everywhere around, and blueshift in only one region, is that both are caused by differing levels of curvature (acting as gravity).

DOES the 2.7K temperature background radiation “really prove” the Big Bang?

DOES the 2.7K temperature background radiation “really prove” the Big Bang?

All one needs to do is wait a billion years, and see that there is no additional cooling-down of the 2.7K with time.  A second method would be to travel to other far-away locations, elsewhere, inside this universe, and measure “there”, to see if the “2.7 K background” there has some other value “there”, (while we on earth still measure it as 2.7K).

While neither of the above two methods are likely to yield results quickly enough to settle the argument soon, yet other methods might be found where we can tell, from here on earth, what those readings would be “there”, somewhere else? What I am trying to suggest is that science “kind-of rolled-over and ignored the real evidence” against the standard hypothesis, and kind-of railroaded the conclusions into a group-consensus, where dissent is not tolerated, much less cherished.

The standard view is that the case is so proven, via. self-fulfilling logic, none but a “fool” would disagree with it.  What has been missed is: The whole logic is a flimsy “house of cards”, where any kink in the evidence, anywhere, will collapse the whole structure in on itself.


The last major area where the whole scientific world has probably been fooled is when they conclude that the expansion of this universe is accelerating, and not slowing-down.  Part of the problem is that earth’s scientists have corrected their observed data BEFORE they draw their conclusions from it, BASED-ON the expectations that, time-wise, everywhere else in this universe, time runs at the EXACT-SAME rate as right here on earth.  The small problem is: The visual evidence indicates otherwise.

I have argued elsewhere in the C-R theory as to why this simple acceptance of: “Everywhere else is IDENTICAL to earth conditions, time-wise, courtesy of the theory of relativity.”, is AN UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION.

I have enjoyed quoting the Chico Marx line: “Who you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?”, to ridicule science for first throwing away the OBSERVED visual evidence that far-off regions of our universe are NOT LIKE Earth at all, but are slowed-down considerably.  AFTER CORRECTING the OBSERVED DATA, [because they believed the premise from the theory of relativity, rather than accepting THEIR own OBSERVED DATA, or their actual results], science then wonders why this universe does not make proper sense to them.

DOES anyone else out there have a problem with the scenario described above? Is it FAIR {or GOOD science?} to correct the OBSERVED and MEASURED data FIRST, THEN, afterward, derive your conclusions from that pre-corrected data, and be baffled with the results?

Is it any wonder that the conclusions do not make good sense?



Rather than invoking a “mysterious” dark matter, why not consider the more reasonable and probable cause of electromagnetic fields, shaping, driving, and holding-together the galaxies, and driving the spiral arms to twist?

If we were to start searching close-to-home, in our own solar system, can we find evidence of enormous quantities of stray electrical charges, huge electrical fields, large magnetic fields, or electrical activity? Just about everywhere we look, evidence is stuffed into nooks and crannies, in existing reports, if we just read about them.

Without belaboring the point, the huge current flowing between Jupiter and Io, of up to 5 million amps at a cyclic peak, is one such occurrence.  Auroral activity on every planet, and many moons suggests more stray electrical charges.  Lightning and thunderstorms are such prominent features of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, Venus, and some moons, that electrical activities there cannot be denied.

If one checks out our sun’s corona, and the areas around sunspots, the level of magnetic fields and intense energies of solar flares, solar prominences, and coronal mass ejections, evidence that something magnetic exists there is abundant here too.

Additionally, the biggest anomaly virtually IGNORED by science is the double-negative ionization of ALL of the hydrogen atoms in our sun’s photosphere.  Virtually EVERY hydrogen atom there HAS TWO ELECTRONS, despite it’s over 6,000° C, or almost 10,000°F temperature, suggests the biggest clue possible has been completely ignored.

Given that the solar wind accelerates-away, after it leaves the sun’s vicinity seems to suggest some anomalous electrical charge behavior, too.

If we search for evidence of electromagnetic activity outside our solar system, huge radio wave emissions, X-rays, gamma rays, polarized light, and high energy cosmic rays might almost be a walking billboard, advertising electrical activity, but you would never know it reading the standard accounts.

After that we have enormous clouds of ionized radicals (ions as part of chemical structures with either positive or negative ions), 7 million degree warm lobes above and below our galaxies central massive Black-HoleC-R, stretching for 25,000 light years each way, containing something like 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy.

I have read elsewhere that the outer 1/5 of this universe’s hydrogen is ALL ionized, which might also give one strong clues as to the amount of electrical activity happening way-out-there.

In short, the home reader is invited to search for themselves to find similar reports that mention the presence of any type of electromagnetic activity, and see if I am simply making it up, or if something indeed is going on “out there”.

Summing it all up:

There are times where I might apologize for using humor to try to get my points across, in the Comedy-Recycling theory, because I thought that might get more people to read it (voluntarily) and get them to enjoy it, if I did too.

I have since also authored the Completely Recycling theory, for the benefit of our international readers, with much of the original humor eliminated.  It has succeeded in being downloaded by more people, more often, from all-around the world, than the original Comedy-Recycling theory.

I knew the “experts” were too set in their ways, and the scope of my ideas was too radical for the current generation to fully accept.  I have tried to provide these ideas, free of charge, to anyone who will take the time to look at them.  I will try to seriously suggest these alternatives to the current champ, “The Big Bang” theory, and show why these answers are better, simpler, more straightforward, and less contrived.

There are other areas, like using Black-HolesC-R to recycle matter and energy, where the ideas are profound, simple, and easily testable, to a remarkable degree.  I invite every new reader to ask if these ideas are not easier for you to understand, and make more sense, to you, than the competition?

To those critics who say that the Comedy-Recycling theory is one of the worst named theories in all of science, that is your right to think-so.  I claim that overall, there are so many new ideas in here, that the theory would have been just-as-rejected anyway, in virtually any standard forum, even if it had been conventionally named.

While I was first writing this paragraph, the home-page visitor count was nearing our 42,000th visitor. (P.S., it did reach that number a while ago..  Downloading bandwidth is up considerably, compared to earlier years.  Recently, we have set new records for weekly incoming visitor numbers.  We also do well with returning visitors, re-visiting bookmarked pages, and reading more topics that this theory has to offer.

I do apologize for my unorthodox methods, but these results speak for themselves.  “Someone” is looking at this theory, and some are returning multiple times.  These ideas are not expressed elsewhere.  I offer them for your consideration, and to get you to try to think in new patterns.  I am trying to point-out commonalities in observations that science has mostly missed, or worse-yet, deliberately ignored.

Was science looking for something “too complicated” {formula-wise}, so that they ignored some simpler alternatives.  I am suggesting that the reader look at known items in a new way, and learn to recognize new patterns, if indeed they are there.  Is our universe far more dynamic, because of the electrical, magnetic, polarized, and basic, charge-separating activity, than anyone-else in mainstream science suspects?

If I play the Fool, and I am wrong, then I will be another in a long line of genuinely convinced, but still sincerely wrong individuals.  If I play the Fool, by conventional wisdom, but I end-up being right in any of these new areas (or all of them), then that IS the type of Fool I would rather be this April.

If the scientific world has indeed been April-Fooled by nature in at least 3 key areas, as the C-R theory suspects, for all these many years, I would rather that someone else had the privilege to point-it-out to them.  Since I could find no-one else who also thought-so, the lot fell to me.  If any of the C-R theory’s regular readers become convinced-enough, I would appreciate their extra help in pointing-out the possible errors to the rest of the world.  By gently mentioning all of these areas to explore, I hope to assist others to travel the same pathways, and re-consider some-of what they have been taught.

It is always possible that there are many more, simple, new ideas hidden within the C-R theories, that I have not-yet realized.  I invite all home-readers to see if they can discover obvious items (to you, at home), that I have not yet discovered.

Look at the newest scientific papers and reports, and look for those type-of patterns that only the C-R theory pathways could appreciate.  If you find more, independent of my suggesting where to look, post your results somewhere, and look for many more items.

If you do happen to find the C-R theory ideas personally useful, please let others know, too.  If you can think of easier or quicker ways to test any of the main ideas, let that be known, too.  If you find no evidence supporting the C-R theory ideas, keep looking for my newest blogs, and I will try to keep you informed with things I uncover for likely areas to notice relevant phenomenon.

Whatever topic(s) I chose for the next blog, I will try to return back to the more serious conventional subjects, and also cover more of my older ideas with even newer insights from these last few years, rather than by adding more humor.

One of my highest goals is to be recognized by some credible mainstream source(s) and having some of the C-R theory ideas taken seriously, and discussed and considered as such.  I would also like to find those web-sites where the C-R theory ideas have been discussed, but the search engines rank too low to be listed in a common web-search.

Thank you again for visiting, and I look forward to my next opportunity to create these blog sessions, where I can further address some of the possible merits from the C-R theory ideas.  Sincere questions and concerns can be addressed using the Contact the Author block on the homepage at the top.

Jerry A. Reynard.   To be posted on or just before April 1, 2012 [Edited March, 2015]