C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

Continuation of blog (January 2, 2009)

In the last blog, I briefly challenged the notion of the expansion of the universe, one of the key ideas that the Big Bang is derived from.  A newer theory, the Big Bounce, does away with the singularity by allowing an older universe to collapse first, nearly into a singularity, then re-emerge as the universe we know-of as the one caused by the Big Bang, hyperinflation-phase and all.  (Thereby, it keeps the other 4 anomalies from the Big Bang intact.)

When Penzias and Wilson found the 2.7 K background microwave in the early 1960’s, cosmologists rejoiced that they had finally found some evidence for the “start” of the universe.  For such an extravagant claim, common science accepted it with barely a whimper.

With the C-R theory’s claim that this universe is NOT expanding, but fixed in size, the 2.7 K looms large in many people’s minds as something which deserves some comments.  I would be happy to relay that the C-R theory is not at all troubled by the 2.7 K microwave radiation-energy, coming evenly from all directions.  The C-R theory considers this as an ongoing process, similar to the roar one hears from a near-by waterfall.  Of course, this microwave “roar” is not nearby, and has no preferred direction.  Within a few millionths of a degree, it is uniform in all directions.

The C-R theory considers this 2.7 K as the “averaged-out” and expanded remnants of ALL of the novae, supernovae, quasars, gamma-ray bursts (GRB’s) and the like.  When mentioning the expanded-out part, it is important to note that this universe is still closed-off, and fixed in size, energy content, and overall density.  The expansion occurs more horizontally than outward.  This merely averages-out and smooths-out the farthest known and detected matter, mostly IONIZED hydrogen.  (A Scientific American article in the 2005 year claimed that the outer 1/5 of our universe consisted of mostly ionized hydrogen.  Of course, they believed that the hydrogen resulted from the Big Bang, de-ionized at 300,000 years from the beginning, then selectively re-ionized again, later on.)

The C-R theory claims that this 2.7 K is evidence instead of continuous recycling (of both matter and energy, by the most-perfect system ever).  A very big, predicted difference is that in the C-R theory, this 2.7 K is continually replenished, and will NEVER red-shift (cool-down over time).  In 1.5 billion years, and in 15 billion years, as seen from earth, this 2.7 K will always measure the same.

In the Big Bang (and probably the Big Bounce) scenario(s), as the universe expands and ages, the 2.7 K continually both cools-down and fades-out.  In 1.5 billion years time, it should probably both fade and cool by at least 1%, and potentially up to 10%.  Although this would be expected, it may occur too slowly to be determined within, say, 100-1000 years (or within our full, human lifetimes).

In the C-R theory scenario, however, there is another way to test which idea is correct.  By travelling to another location, either closer-in to the center (The Great Attractor) it should measure “cooler”, or by travelling-out, towards the outer edges, the 2.7 K should measure warmer, respectively.  This is due to the actual time-frame of the residents there changing, and measuring the radiation differently.  HINT: IF we, on earth see a quasar with a 90% red-shift (to us), at that quasar, the 2.7 K should measure 27 K (ten times warmer, to their ten times slower time-frame), as measured in ALL directions.  This would not be the case if our universe is expanding uniformly between all mutual observers.

If for any reason, humanity could ever communicate with other civilizations from far-away, we might know instantly if this universe is expanding, or gravitationally red-shifted by asking them if they see earth as blue-shifted or red-shifted from their home world.  (Unless they came from somewhere closer-in to the Great Attractor.  Then we should appear just-as red-shifted to them as they appear blue-shifted to us.  (For an illustrated view of this idea see the multi-part Voyage Through the Universe diagram).

Note: From anywhere inside this universe, the view one gets will still see complete red-shifts in all directions.  The size, and relative blue-ness of the Great Attractor will change with location.  Also: The Great Attractor will never “attract” anything.  If you will, gravitationally, it is the most “uphill” location in this universe.  One would need to acquire additional real-time energy to be able to approach there.  Despite the blue-shifting, it will NEVER pull or attract mass towards it.  Just like climbing a mountain, or flying skyward, one would need to expend (or add more) energy to go nearer.  {The name was ironically based upon “scientific ignorance”, much the same as when Ben Franklin guessed, with 50-50 odds, that “positive” electrical charges had an excess of something, rather than a lack-of electrons.  Continual use, over time, has reinforced and maintained the naming irony.}

I would challenge both critics and skeptics to find any simpler theory, using simpler assumptions, and with fewer violations of conservation of energy, which will fit our “real-world” universe, as observed and explain the observations in harmony with the theory.  I welcome any readers to suggest any observations, experimental outcomes, or tests, in which the C-R theory can be compared to the Big Bang hypothesis.

I have posted the C-R theory on the internet, for free, to allow any and all to take their best shots at it, find any flaws in my logic, to poke holes into any weaknesses they can find.  I cannot say the C-R theory has survived such challenges, merely it has escaped attack mostly by obscurity or simple dismissal.

I do wish to offer the C-R theory as a viable alternative to those theories presented in the standard media.  It is probably too radical, and too new for current consideration.  I hope to change that over time, and develop a small base of supporters, believers, accepters, and considerers who will honestly consider both C-R’s merits and any weakness or failures they can find.  If the theory is partly or completely wrong, I would like to know it.

In my next blog, I will try to present what evidence the C-R theory supports, and look at areas where there should be a clear difference in expectations between the C-R theory and standard theories.  I welcome any readers out there to build-upon the C-R theory, to accept any areas you can, and replace or improve any areas if possible.  If the C-R theory is true, I expect some readers out there to discover items I’ve missed, to understand things I’ve never challenged or haven’t thought-of yet.

I usually get some new thought or understanding every 6 months to a year, and uncover something in a new way of thinking.  I look forward to the time where observant readers can contribute to the discovery process.

I hope to add a link-to page sometime in 2009.  It will be near the end of the theory.  I do not wish to lead-away my hard-won readers too easily or too soon.  I would like to show some of the web-sites I’ve enjoyed, and some that have ideas useful to the C-R theory, even if they do not support the overall C-R theory.  I would like to help those skeptical of the standard theories to discover some of the alternatives.  I do feel safe in my belief that they will find no better overall theory than the C-R theory, when fairly compared with all others.

I also hope to provide some short video clips, explaining some of the C-R theory ideas in my own words, and with my chosen emphasis (and editing, too).  They should be short, between two and five minutes per concept.  I hope to cover such topics as: Is our Universe Closed or Open?, gravitational curvature, time slow-down, How Black-Hole’s C-R work, recycling of matter-energy, anomalies known to science, but not appreciated, the Great Attractor, and what it really is, why supernovae continually expand, the double-negative ionization of ALL the hydrogen atoms in our sun’s photosphere, what really powers our sun, are red-shifts really Doppler shifts?, and others as I think of them.  (Topics suggested by readers for my “pro-C-R” explanation will be considered.)

I might also like to do something on FAQ’s.

I might try to “advocate” some of the Observations and Illustrations diagrams, possibly featuring or highlighting special ones in each blog.  I designed these graphics to try to convey the more complex topics in colorful and visual terms, broken down into simple steps.  I do feel they are under-utilized, and they should help readers understand and visualize the concepts, if they are featured.  Please don’t leave the C-R theory without checking some (preferably ALL) items on this page.

Observations and Illustrations

Please feel free to write-in to the C-R theory, you can use the contact the author section on the bottom title bar to take you to a contact form.  I do value readers questions or comments.  Even skeptics questions and comments are welcome.