C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

Conclusion of the last blog entry, "Is there a connection between some or ALL of these known phenomena and the C-R theory?"

Reader Note: Both the December issues of Discover Magazine, and Scientific American have Black holes (generic ones) as the subject on the front cover.  From the C-R theory standpoint, the Scientific American article, Portrait of a Black Hole, (page 42), is much more useful, more specific, and much longer, and I’ll briefly cover why, here.

If you, the home-reader, take nothing else away from the Scientific American article, it does contain one real gem, rarely found in articles accessible to the general public, or stated so succinctly.  A Black-HoleC-R “releases” energy from matter some 20 times as efficiently as fusion!!!!! Couple this fact with the idea that the long-run, mass-consumption by the Black-HoleC-R is not “poisoned” by enriched helium content, as the hydrogen for fusion would be.

The C-R Theory All Star Lineup

[Your cranial-lightbulbs (as in: Aha!, I understand it now!!) should turn on (especially after I suggest it to you, here" chy not use that more efficient energy mechanism to power ALL (or almost all) of the objects seen emitting energy in this universe? After all, if I had a car engine that got 400 miles per gallon from the same fuel that with the standard engine got only 20 miles per gallon, I would be a fool indeed if I didn’t use the more efficient method first (if the “cost” of obtaining that energy from a fixed-amount of fuel was relatively equal).

Additionally, the article also mentions that after the infalling-mass surrenders tremendous energy by falling nearer-to a Black-HoleC-R, “ something” jets-out from the poles at 99.98% of lightspeed, in the OPPOSITE direction.  Conventional science has absolutely NO idea why this is so.  This is the second item I would like to dwell more extensively on.

WARNING : Since the situation being considered above is, in itself unreasonable, might it not be “reasonable” that the proposed solution be almost equally unreasonable, too?)

Briefly, the C-R theory says a Black-HoleC-R is a mass-sieve device (pun intended), which sorts, then consumes sub-atomic particles BY MASS.  The protons, and proton-neutron combinations are consumed, then stored in an isolated, turned-off manner.  The area that holds the charged particles stores them in a thin volume, an outer shell or region where technically “the escape velocity is above light-speed”.  [Akin to keeping your change, stored-up in a piggy-bank, for a long time.] A Neutral ZoneC-R is the literal name that the C-R theory calls this place.

The C-R theory hypothesis is that the outflowing-jets from active Black-HolesC-R are exclusively formed-up by the newly freed-up electrons.  {No protons or positrons are likely to be found here} They become self-collimated by their mutually-moving magnetic fields, but they are also intensely trying to repel each other away.  This intense magnetism “forces” the electrons to escape, confined in very narrow beams, at very high speeds.  The magnetism from the moving charges keeps the two beams “tightly-focused” and intact for thousands, maybe millions of years.  (It is easier for all electrons collectively to “go-with-the-flow”, as a group, than for each-one to fight their way out from the Black-HoleC-R independently.  Their magnetic fields also “superimpose a cage-like confinement”, with a battering ram-like punch, that clears an exit-path very effectively.  (Electrons in a bunch with a punch after munching on lunch, as our Black-HolesC-R might say, beaming with punful-pride.)

A C-R theory joke goes like this: Q: Why do electrons fleeing a Black-HoleC-R travel in jets?

A: Because propeller planes take way too long to get anywhere.

The other explanations are found within sections of the C-R theory.  All are very simple.  They are harder for you, the home-reader, to BELIEVE or ACCEPT, than they are to understand.  I also cover how to check nature, exactly where to look, and what to specifically notice that will clue-you-in to, Does nature really work this way?

On a sad note, all of these new articles still list (conventional) Black holes as evil monsters, lurking deep inside the galaxies, waiting to devour whatever unfortunate victims stagger nearby.  The C-R theory, on the other hand, tries to show home readers to appreciate the fine design, craftsmanship, and noble purpose that nature truly intended for a Black-HoleC-R.  Indeed, our life, here on earth, would be seriously less pleasant if it were not for our friend, the Black-HoleC-R, powering our sun.  (Unfortunately, current science won’t discover or acknowledge this for many years to come.)

MORE LHC Speculations:

New item: Sacrificing quantity, bulk measurements, for enhanced precision.  If we revamped the LHC, and limited it to a very few protons at a time, controlled individually with significantly-improved precision, then slightly vary the collisions incrementally, from a glancing blow, to full, head-on collisions, plotting the results, while tweaking the protons (or their constituent sub-quarks), we might get a more useful list for scientists.

My “gut intuition” suspects that at least one parameter [science trick?] might be found that would allow particles to go faster, and to be driven more efficiently, without simply increasing the mass of all-of the particles.  If this can be found, this lays the ground work to exploit that method, and increase the speed of travel while decreasing the wasted energy needed to accelerate a mass.

Even more speculative: Consider a new particle, the whippet (a pun modeled from the roller-derby movie, Whip-it), a resonance-particle or energy packett that could catapult (or slingshot) a mass from near sub-light speeds to just-over supra-light speeds, kind-of “directly-bypassing” the troublesome “center”, exactly at light speed.

I know of no way to reverse the process controllably, but if it could be done, that would be enormous progress towards warp-speed engines.  It may be possible to use our existing LHC with only minor modifications, but with substantially enhanced individual precision on a per-proton basis.

Think of a billion-fold reduction in quantity, but a billion-fold enhancement of known-precision, per particle interaction, or beam focus.  Think of micro-control of each proton-proton collision, plotted-out in at least 10,000 precisely controlled angular sub-increments.  This is where the truly new insight, and the future course of research, should be guided.  I suspect that a “phasing” parameter can be found that will cause the collision speeds to be more effective, and reduce substantially the energy wasted on increasing the mass.

Analogy, consider a penny, placed flat, face-on, into a stream of water.  As one turns the penny sideways, the resistance to the flow-stream decreases, and turbulence decreases, too.  If something like this can be noticed for sub-atomic particle interactions, the control might allow useful decreases in energy needed to start fusions or fissions, and allow substantial energy liberation-gains.  This also suggests that we may be much closer to accomplishing faster-than light-speed travel, if we can note any modulation parameter that really works.

Second speculation with the LHC: Another very practical new application of the LHC would be to evacuate it totally of protons, and fill it exclusively with concentrated electrons.  Allow them to be freed into a vacuum chamber, and see if they would approximate the behavior near any actual Black-HoleC-R.  Would they collimate into jets, just as the C-R theory claims?

Could scientists verify that the jets of pure electrons would magnetically hold-together, collimate, and maintain bunching in the same approximate manner as the jets seen emanating from Black-HolesC-R ? Either they would, or they wouldn’t.  This might help scientists understand that phenomenon now, instead of waiting for many years, until after the hi-resolution telescope pictures of Black-HolesC-R become available.

My guess is that science would find those two new results much more immediately applicable than the “junk” they will get when trying to understand the Big Bang.  Since that scenario is false, almost no insights will be gained, other than a few possible new particles.  (At over a billion dollars per new particle.)

Introduction to this blog, a continuation, Part II: Known Phenomena and the C-R theory ideas, speculations, predictions.  (I counted 69 separate items in the first part of the previous blog from October.)

In the previous blog, I provided a huge list in many different areas of known items, or observations, that all seem to me to be more compatible with a C-R theory-positive view.  All of those phenomena on the last list behave more like the C-R theory was true.  This second list features additional items I wanted to remark upon, including speculations, predictions, ideas, new answers and comments that weren’t simply observations of already known phenomenon.  These items should continue to build-up the C-R theory’s case, adding to your personal ability “to notice and comprehend an ongoing layer of operation in this universe, completely unsuspected by standard theories, and not anticipated at all from a Big Bang type hypothesis”.

My goal is to get YOU, the home reader to at least allow that the C-R theory can contribute positively to our mutual ideas of how this universe operates, and show areas where the C-R theory seems to have a better handle on what to look-for, and where to look for it, then how to fit-in those known observations to re-understand the operation of the real world.

If this second list, in combination with all the items from the first list, in my previous blog, does not convince you that there is something valid to the C-R theory, [which does not conform to the standard theory expectations], I will continue to add to this list in the future.  Sometime after the initial posting on-line, I hope to have these two blogs combined into an easily downloadable PDF-type document that readers will be able to study at their leisure.  I hope to add in many links, and suggest web pages you can check out if you are interested in exploring independent views, without the C-R theory’s spin.

Readers: It is optional to skip the below text in blue:

Readers, please carefully contemplate these next two allegories before continuing:

Consider this “revised” Hindu fable of the 5 blind men and the elephant.  A playful host, a wealthy maharajah, invites 5 blind men as his guests, to visit at his vast palace.  Each blind man is given a personal tour by the maharajah, including a separate but unique encounter with the same elephant.  Each man is presented with a different anatomical part to hold on to, to touch, to study, and to try to understand.

The first man is given the trunk.  It hangs down, but it also flexes around curiously.  It is constantly looking for food, water, seeking-out smells, and is often exploring.

The second man gets an ear to hold.  It is flat, vertical, flapping, thin in one direction and wide in two other directions, and it moves the air as it flaps.

The third man is presented the side and the belly of the beast, at the middle section, to attempt to put his arms around.  This part is somewhat “barrel shaped”, round and oval, horizontal, and well off the ground.  The fourth man handles one or more of the legs.  About the size of a moderate sized tree trunk.  The leg decreases slightly in size as it leads down to the ground.

The fifth man holds the tail.  Slightly hairy at the tip, hanging down like a rope, it decreases in diameter to the end.  It is sometimes whisked-around to ward-off flies.

When they are later gathered together, all of the men commented that they experienced the same type-of sounds and distinct animal smells.  On those two points, they all agree.  The maharajah then invites them all into a meeting room in his palace.  There, each blind man describes his personal encounter with the “unknown” beast (we now know-of as the elephant), successively, to all of the others.  Each carefully listens to the other men, but each man doubts the truthfulness, reliability, and observations of all the others in turn.  Each man privately notes that none of the other men reports anything like what he personally experienced.

Besides being a nice little fable, this story above gently alludes-to (describes allegorically) the state of modern science attempting to understand the workings of our universe.  The C-R theory is something-like the one who understands a bit more-of the whole picture, and is longing to describe the “truer” picture or situation to everyone else, who just “understands” their one smaller piece of the puzzle.

If you, the home reader, will approach the C-R theory in that same, open-minded manner, and try to learn from: what it looks-at, where it looks, what it says is going on; then you may not perceive that the C-R theory is as crazy as the “standard-thinking scientists” now do.  They, like each of the blind men in the fable, are only seeing their little portion of what they understand, and they cannot yet imagine or comprehend the entire picture as seen from a “better”, or more-encompassing viewpoint.

WARNING: If you try to understand everything that goes on in our known universe, only using conventional science, you run the risk, like each of the blind men in the above fable, of only understanding a smaller part of the larger picture.

HINT: If you are unwilling to change your understanding and learn something “new”, in a “new-way”, and you are not open to revising your thinking; the C-R theory’s ideas may then seem as crazy to you as each of the blind men’s accounts sounded to each of the others in the fable.

I apologize for earlier presentations, where I did not more forcefully present the C-R theory’s point that you need to revise your thinking to understand the whole picture.  You cannot use “only” your current (conventional) thinking to fully understand the C-R theory’s point-of-view.  You must change some of your long-held-beliefs, or you will be unable to see the new benefits gained from using the replacement C-R theory ideas.  Otherwise, the C-R theory will seem like nonsense to you.  It will definitely not agree with your pre-conceived ideas, and what is currently being taught.

It is quite likely that there is much more to this universe that even the C-R theory does not yet fully realize.  There are some phenomena which will only become understood sometime far-into the future, as more of the secrets of this universe become known by piecing ALL of the observations together.

What is hopefully now apparent to you from the first blog’s list: there is much in this universe that is ] already known about, that, just like the 5 blind men in the fable, is not appreciated, or understood BY ALL, in the full context of the bigger picture, or the overall, ongoing operation.  That situation is what the C-R theory is partially attempting to remedy.

A Second, much shorter allegorical story:

A “ (p)Un”-wise decision: Current science is also like another traveler on the path of life, who, when coming to the “ fork” in the road, says, “I’ll just wait here for the “ spoon “!!!” Analogy: Not only does the spoon, {just like dark matter and dark energy} not exist (there at the FORK), but “taking the spoon” will give you no progress on your desired journey of understanding.

And now back to real Science:

Note: If you want to understand WHY gravity is “felt” outside the Black-HoleC-R, but heat, light, and electrical charge* are not (*the C-R theory says that electrical charge is not felt outside of a Black-HoleC-R, conventional theory says it is), ONLY the C-R theory will allow you to understand why.  Conventional theory has no real clue as to why this is the case.

Additional Speculations, Answers:

PUN: If “g” ain’t broke, then why “FIX” it? —

(“g”, the Newtonian gravitational “constant”, that is)

By the C-R theory view, the gravitational constant, “g”, as a “fixed-value”, does not really exist.  Instead, (local) “g” is a changing variable, varying locally, by position, from it’s maximum value at the center of the universe, i.e., location.

The C-R theory says “g” is simply a local measurement, kind-of a measure of how effective gravitational curvature, [as the agent to accomplish de-activation], has been in slightly shutting-down matter.  (or how effective gravitational curvature is at partially shutting-down or deactivating matter.) If the location, as measured by the distance from the center of the universe, changes, technically, the energy-worth of matter [as measured by converting it back into energy] changes, too.  MAKE DIAGRAMS, Energy-worth vs curvature, time slowdown vs curvature, distance from the center vs slowdown, by position.

Are there additional examples of proton-proton repelling? (after those found in the multiple-positive ionizations in supernovae?) This process achieves sustainable ionization levels, far higher, and way beyond those explained by normal fusion-powered temperatures, which should cool-off with time.  Using this mechanism, much higher energies and ionizations are sustained vs.  those expected from standard mechanisms.  (i.e., the initial heat of fusion at the beginning of the supernova being the ONLY sustained source powering the ongoing expansion)

NOTE: Conventional sources allow that up to 1,000 eV.  (electron-volts) worth-of energy, are released or achieved due-to each proton-proton-encounter, when mutually repelling each other away.

Hint: Release quintillions of ionized protons simultaneously into a “freed-up-blob” of matter, and see what happens.  All of the multiple positive ionizations noticed in supernova ejecta (remnants) might be a good indication (i.e., a clue) of high levels of continuing positive ionization, both CAUSING and starting the initial burst, then sustaining the drive.

NOTE: Conventional theory does not understand or accept that ANY conventional process can provide energies at the levels seen from a GRB.  (I read about a proposed Poynting vector process, considered as a possible mechanism to achieve the high levels that are seen.) Of course, standard theories have pre-rejected the C-R theory hypothesis: that positive charges could-have-been consumed, effectively isolated and insulated over eons, then suddenly released in a cataclysmic “failure-of-confinement” or ripping-open of the Neutral ZoneC-R.  (Akin to breaking open your piggy-bank, and recovering 100% of everything you’ve ever put inside it during your lifetime, all at once.)

That means, this sudden, multiple-proton-release process has never been objectively considered.  Apparently, I would need to TOUT this possibility to some desperate graduate student as an opportunity to test-model or computer-simulate the C-R theory idea academically.  Someone will be the first to take the credit for checking these results.  Will the C-R theory ideas work, or are they, too, full of hot air?

(Note: I did some experimenting with the text below, by adding some additional “brand-name” identifiable colors, to highlight or feature the non-generic C-R brand Black-HoleC-R, to see how it looks, both on screen, and printed on paper from this blog.  If it’s unreadable, I will change it back to B&W or I could try all one color).  My GOAL is to make the new term STAND-OUT, and be as unmistakable a distinction as possible.  [Colors not present now]

PUN: Get the “Hole” Picture

The properties of a Black- Hole CR are much more fundamentally integrated-into the workings of our universe, much more linked-in.  Lesser-sized Black- Holes CR may be much more common if some (most, or all) stars are powered by a Black- Hole CR .  See the previous blog for a large list of all of the related phenomena caused by this method.

Ask about it: Do any readers know how many other stars {besides our sun} (percentage-wise or number-wise) also feature double negative ionization of their photosphere’s contents? I have not yet found a source mentioning it either on-line or in a book, for anything other than our sun.  (It took me 25 years to find out that phenomenon had been known about on our sun since at least 1972.)

Can I find it in writing anywhere? I suspect there are many stars that do (and hope so, too).  The more stars that are found (or are already known) to be double-negative ionized, the better that fact is for the C-R theory.

NOTE: The most-recent issue, (December 2009) of Astronomy magazine (on page 45) answered a reader’s question as to the smallest known, hydrogen-burning star.  Called MOA-2007-BKG-192L, it is only supposed to contain between 6%-9% of our sun’s mass.  Is a small Black-HoleC-R a more likely internal heating mechanism to reliably power such a minimal mass than the fusion reaction? Could such a small-massed star have ever initiated the fusion reaction, on it’s own, even with substantial “external help” from a nearby supernova blast?

RELATED ITEM: Are brown dwarf stars too small to sustain fusion? (and/or to ever have initiated fusion in the first place?) Apparently red dwarf stars, white dwarf stars and larger are considered “fusion-viable” for powering purposes, by conventional theory.


Why do galaxies outer arms hold together (without needing “more gravity”)? Perhaps there are electromagnetic reasons.  First,use known forces to try to explain the differences.  Only after failing to do so, then invent some unknown “dark” forces with unmeasurable, undetectable results.  Much less trouble for the C-R theory scenario, bigger trouble, and yet another weird anomaly needed, for the Big Bang crew.

The attraction from gravity should fall off by the inverse-square-law from the massive central region, but most galaxy arms maintain an almost linear velocity-speed relationship when outer-arm stars orbit around their galaxy’s center.  Otherwise, all galaxies spirals should all be wound-up, continually twisting, scrunching and pinching, not simply be pinwheeled and spun.  (More like content organizing by mixing an egg using an eggbeater.)

The C-R theory suspects that the real reason galaxies arms don’t fly apart is that unsuspected electromagnetic interactions allow the stars to “hold-each-other’s hands” electromagnetically, so to speak.  Dark matter does not need to exist, and plays no part in the structure of the galaxy.

SIMPLE NOTE: Maybe gravity isn’t the only possible inverse-square force that helps to hold galaxies together.  Search on Galaxy Electrons, PAMELA, ATIC, to find interesting new material on high-energy electrons found in some galaxy centers.  Look for evidence like, magnetic fields, polarizations, ions, gas flows, as some of the reasons to suspect this action.

NEW THOUGHT: Why spend billion$ of dollar$ trying to find non-existent dark energy and dark matter, before ruling out the possible force contribution from the OTHER 50% of the known inverse-square forces.  (HINT: electromagnetic energy)

HINT: Here’s a simple test you can FAIL first, to rule this idea out.  Look at any galaxy through a polarized filter.  Rotate the filter either clockwise, or counter-clockwise, and as long as NO changes are seen, you can rule out electromagnetic energy (electricity and magnetism) as the cause of galaxies holding together.

Ask any galaxy why they still hold-together, and they may say: “Currently {pun intended}, I am inverse-square dancing.  See how I stay in shape as my spiral arms do-si-do electromagnetically”.

Related New Quote : A C-R theory “exclusive” guide to not finding Dark Matter: The best way to not find what isn’t there is to not look for it in the first place.  You are then much more likely to succeed in not finding what isn’t there, rather than continually fail.

(Translation: Look for what IS there first, then afterward look for what isn’t there {dark energy and dark matter})

New PUNs : (S)pin the TALE on the Galaxy, — or — , They’re Twisting my (galaxy’s) arms

or — Armed Forces (to the rescue)?

Are there hidden electromagnetic fields’ which contribute magnetic force from freed-up clouds-of-electrons? These electrons would be released from Black-HolesC-R powering stars in galaxies.  Could this be the real reason galaxies arms hold together, or galaxy arm rotation-spin doesn’t spin-apart the arm structure?

Rather than needing additional “gravity” from dark energy or dark matter to hold-together, magnetism is a known force, and polarized light is seen virtually everywhere (especially in galaxies).  Is it “simply” magnetic fields that cause galaxies to hold together?

Can I find links about the levels of polarized light in galaxies and articles suggesting enormous quantities of free-electrons in galaxies?

Use a Torque-Driver, or Tweaking your “NO’s!!!”

NEW THOUGHT (or speculation, as in, The C-R “SPIN): Could an additional reason that spinning galaxies hold-together and don’t fly apart (without having or needing any extra mass) be that each star is individually “torqued or tweaked” magnetically back into a “group-formation”, if or when it individually “strays out-of line?” All of it’s neighbors would locally contribute magnetic forces or vortexes to maintain or restore the formation.

HINT: (Think of geese naturally flying in a “V” formation.  Aeronautical engineers have found that all of the geese, including the lead flier, are mutually assisted, when they fly in this V formation, and their collective drag is minimized.)

PUN: Or is that type-of new logic just “way out of line”?

NOTE ALSO: The more any individual star moves, compared to the others, the more potential magnetic interaction would be expected.  Think of a flock of birds, or a school of fish, maintaining an internal order, without any external influence or gudiance.  Do stars in a galaxy’s arms behave likewise [like a flock], but without thinking?

NEW PUN: Have you “herd” that idea?

Is there evidence of excess electron clouds or effects (anywhere beyond our sun’s photosphere)? I’d expect some all around, everywhere.  I saw some claims of electrons in central galaxies.  Check PAMELA, ATIC (Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter), HEAT (High Energy Antimatter Telescope).  Current science is baffled by the quantity and energy of free electrons with very high energies which have been found in some galaxies.

Can I restore common sense and human-friendly-reasoning using the C-R theory?

Using situation-based reasoning or understanding (not predominantly equation-based) is another new-key to the C-R theory’s progress.  Nature uses same type-of ideas over and over.  Equations are good, but at best, they only represent idealized, simplified solutions.  Over-reliance on simple equations can (and in the past, often has), led scientists astray.  By understanding How nature works, one might get new insights into how similar systems might be working elsewhere in this universe.  That is part of the approach the C-R theory has taken.

The C-R theory says there is no overall significance attributed to the very minor differences from WMAP explorer and anisotropy, in millionths of a degree increments.  Exaggerated differences are non-significant and not important.  The C-R theory doesn’t need something there to be “significant.” ADVANTAGE: C-R theory

Look for “excess electrons” as Nature’s guide to detecting a feeding Black-HoleC-R or it’s activity, {dining evidence}.  (If not eating, any C-R brand Black-HoleC-R emits no radiation.) If you find ANY excess or freed-up electrons IN ABUNDANCE, that should be a dead giveaway that there is an actively-feeding Black-HoleC-R in the vicinity.  CLAIM: That includes the fully-double-ionized appearance of ALL of the hydrogen in our sun’s photosphere.

From 2008 and 2009, there is much discussion about high energy electrons found in central galaxies.  Some of the experiments expect that both electrons and positrons are mixed, and that is what is being detected, since they cannot imagine any process that would concentrate (or free) pure electrons.  The C-R theory suspects that when these particles are evaluated properly, there will be few if any positrons found, and most of the galactic-core electrons will be regular, run-of-the-mill electrons.  The difference is, the C-R theory has a proposed mechanism that DOES actively separate and free electrons, called a Black-HoleC-R !!! Every Black-HoleC-R eating matter should be freeing-up electrons, as the protons and proton-neutron nuclei are consumed, confined, inactivated, stored-up, insulated, and isolated in a Neutral Zone C-R.

“Cool” your enthusiasm for the Big Bang’s start, but never the 2.7K background noise, over time!!

The C-R theory expects that the 2.7K background radiation is not red shifting with time, and does not cool-down over time.  (an extremely-long-term measurement will be needed to verify that.) It may need tens-of-millions-of years to prove it, or to “not observe the 2.7K” cooling with time.  What is the shortest time-period over which we could accurately determine the 2.7K’s value was non-changing as the Big Bang expected?

The C-R theory also says that the 2.7K we observe is not connected in any way with the Big Bang! It is a coincidence, pure and simple.  The presence or existence of the 2.7K as the background temperature does not prove or demonstrate that the Big Bang occurred.  It is simply an artifact of ongoing “recycling” processes from the everyday operation of the universe.  It is continually recreated from reflections re-focused from our universe’s outer-regions.

Why gravity “is felt” or expressed outside a Black-HoleC-R, but heat and light (and electrical charge are not).  Only the C-R theory has a good, simple, practical idea why.


Photons do not change their value in a gravitational field (the measurer’s reference-frame/energy changes, along with their equipment).  This will need a half-page explanation-discussion, at least.  (or hyperlink to internal C-R theory item _ )

Drake Equation: (don’t duck this opportunity to write it down ) [but make it funny, so the readers quack-up]

The C-R theory could provide a new take on the Drake equation (The NASA equation from the early space age, for calculating or estimating the probability of their finding intelligent life in this universe) (Since the C-R theory supplies infinite time, this may give a much higher but still finite number of advanced worlds.  Should I move this item elsewhere? It is a notable change, for the C-R theory difference added by an infinitely-old universe.  That must increase the potential numbers by a very large amount.

Mass Changes Value: — or — Moving the Bar

Only the C-R Theory theorizes that the “energy-value” of a 1 Kg mass changes with it’s gravitational position in this universe, decreasing linearly in value as measured from the center.  It is not “constant” in energy-value or isotropic, i.e., the same everywhere.  {This is an expectation, not a measurement?} It has real significance to the current international mass-standard originally based on Paris France, 1 Kg mass.  Scientists did not take that energy-difference-bias into consideration when they defined a standard mass based on an equivalent-energy value.  Moving that same bar elsewhere would change it’s value, if the height was changed.

That property also gives the overall universe incredible positional-stability.  It is not a fragile “house-of-cards” waiting for the slightest disturbance to collapse it.  See C-R section __ show diagram or link to one

This may be a unique idea of-, or expectation-from the C-R theory.  No-one else has caught-on to it yet.  That’s why it needs a good explanation to show why I think it is so.

It may be 50 years before the majority “learns” of this new idea, or connects-the-dots.

*may already be in blog #1 – 101.  New item to consider (not observation) Is there any connection between the smaller scale structure of the small particles creating Saturn’s rings, and the electrostatic charge? This charge would keep the rings particles dispersed, prevent gravitational bunching or clumping, and assist in avoiding a collapse.  Is there any spectroscopic evidence, or NASA data suggesting any excess of accumulated electrical charge? This simple addition might help stabilize the ring structure and keep rings stable much longer.

Check-off List:

Almost every month, new items related to those already included in the previous blog’s list are mentioned and discovered.  This author suspects the C-R compatible process is involved or suggested.  I would suggest that the home-readers keep a scorecard (show an example on 3 x 5 card).  Check off each new item discovered.  I would welcome each reader’s independent evaluation of the C-R theory ideas.

The C-R Theory does not need any of the troublesome listed items below:

Not Needed Items : (The C-R theory doesn’t need the contributions from any of these following items that give standard theories difficulties, at all.)

1. No hyperinflation is needed.  Nheck one point up for the C-R theory

2. No starting cause of a Big Bang is needed.  Nheck another one up for the C-R theory

3. No solution to Omega problem needed.  NWhy the universe appears almost filled with enough mass to “close-off” this universe.) {The Real Answer is: Because the universe is totally filled-up, and closed-off, it always has been, and it always will be.  That is the BEST reason that our universe “ ALMOST” appears to be so.} Check off another one for the C-R theory.

4. No trouble with why every direction appears so similar when viewed from earth.  Ns a “closed-universe”, the entire contents inside of our universe have been thermally equalized since forever-ago, in every direction.  Check-off another one for the C-R theory

5. No source of dark-energy is needed to power the accelerating of the acceleration, or even acceleration.  Nur universe appears increasingly red-shifted at a distance from a simpler explanation.  Check one again.

6. No frame dragging (Is this an includable item for the list?) NASA results should be announced later this year.  Ns this a prediction, or a known observation? Include in part 2 of the blog.

7. No Hawking radiation.  NIs this an observation, or just an expectation?) The environment just outside a Black-HoleC-R may have many types of energy being released, but no portion of that from Hawking radiation.  Can that be measured, or seen or differentiated? (or is it just suspected by C-R?) See thought experiment __

8. Black- Holes CR should not be seen eating other Black-Holes CR.  Both of their “inside-regions” are already at minimum gravitational energy, which should not be further “lowerable” by consuming another Black-HoleC-R (see #__).  Since an “eating” Black-HoleC-R can’t lower another Black-Hole’sC-R gravitational energy any more than the “zero” it already is, eating one is of no value, and no energy gain.

(Hint: Can an ice cube already at absolute zero cool off another ice cube at absolute zero? No!! Both are already at their lowest energy levels attainable.)

Addendum, Dec.  20, 2009 I would like to take this brief opportunity to “mourn” the passing of our first web-site, http://www.geocities.com/recycling_universe.  It served the Comedy-Recycling Theory faithfully for many years before its demise in late 2009.  It will be dearly missed.  It is survived by our newer web-site here at https://www.cr-theory.org

Jerry Reynard, Author and pro-C-R theory Advocate — Modified March, 2015