C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

December, 2012 and January, 2013 Blog

I would like to welcome our 59,000 th , 60,000 th , 61,000 th , 62,000 th , 63,000 th , 64,000 th and 65,000 th visitors, belatedly to this web site.  Welcome to everyone else who visited, too.  Those 7,000-some visitors were just those arriving at the home page.  Some uncounted readers went directly to other pages in the theories, PDF’s, or blogs, and do not figure in the home page’s totals.  To be fair, I log in at least once a day onto the site, and it counts me each log-in.

I would like to put in a plug for the only known contest in all of science that might give one of this web-site’s readers the only opportunity in this millennium to name one of the basic properties of this universe for science.  NOTE: For now, mainstream science does not recognize that the energy-value properties of mass in this universe change with position.  Consider: the mass’s height in a gravitational field affects it’s energy level, here on earth, from a maximum amount of time-clocking, and energy-content at the center of the earth, to the least energy location, [approximately at the Core Mantle Boundary, or CMB], where curvature is greatest, and time on earth runs the slowest, for the minimum energy, real-time position.

[NOTE: The standard Newtonian textbook answer is, time runs slowest at the surface of the earth, and runs faster as one approaches the center of the earth.  This WOULD be the case IF ONLY our earth had an averaged-out density, uniform throughout, as the standard textbooks use in their examples.]

This missed value-change is both good news, and bad news, in some aspects, for our readers.  It is good news in that, since science does not believe-in this case [where the actual, physical properties of mass vary with position], so they are not looking-for it, or competing with everyone who IS looking for those variable properties, therefore, they are quite unlikely to usurp the naming privilege or beat us to the punch.  It is also bad news, in that, it might take many years before this new property is “universally” recognized [pun intended], worldwide, by everyone else.


I established and described the new naming contest to some extent in the last blog, but I would like to use this blog to go over more of the best reasons why the C-R theory believes that this universe does have such a property.  NOTE: Even though the C-R theory does claim that this property exists, there are several possibilities for HOW this property actually manifests itself, and it may be years before science can determine just how this energy-content, value-change takes place.

The most important thing, for now is: To give this property-change a suitable name, that will hold-up, and that can be respected, after the property-change is independently confirmed.  It should be relatively easy to pronounce, spell, and remember, and it should not yet rule-out any of the viable candidates, or possibilities for how the property changes, unless we can determine how the value changes before finalizing the name.

For the benefit of those readers new to this blog, and for those who did not yet read the last blog, the C-R theory has instituted a naming contest, to give an acceptable scientific name to the [undiscovered] property of this universe that allows a mass to change it’s energy-worth.  It probably happens directly, because of the energy input into, or the energy extracted from that mass, when it is either lifted-up, or dropped-down.

I have said so many times, but let me state again, the C-R theory maintains that our universe changes the physical characteristics of mass (and of it’s energy-equivalence, too), so that a mass which has been lifted-up, [in this example, let us use 1 meter], is worth more-energy, in terms of E=mc 2 , than that same mass was, when it was sitting 1 meter lower.  By a non-coincidence, the amount of energy difference IS EXACTLY the same amount of energy that was needed to lift the mass, up, against gravity.

DIRECT DEPOSIT?: (or, unlimited overdraft?)

There are several important benefits to be gained if this direct energy-change is the case, and it eases our understanding of the process of gravity.  First off, gravity, instead of operating as an external field, does not need to “somehow” supply or extract this energy “out of thin air”, [or, out of a non-existent ether], on demand, or to account for it’s exact energy-value amount.  The C-R theory claims that, since the mass itself changes, and picks-up or physically incorporates this energy gain into it’s internal structure.   It could also spend just enough additional real-time in a faster-running timeframe, so that the

E=mc 2 (time rate difference, before to after) comes either from the slightly-faster “c” speed, or the slightly longer amount of real-time the object “exists”, as compared to some external reference frame.

RELATIVITY: If “c” ain’t FIXED, it’s broken.

NOTE: The theory of relativity does not expect ANY incremental difference in “c”, but was defined using a non-changing lightspeed as a fixed benchmark to establish the theory.  In it’s starting hypothesis, scientists after Einstein have built their entire understanding on: “that lightspeed is the always exactly the same wherever light is found, and wherever it travels to,”.  They ASSUMED there was no “preferred reference frame” for time or lightspeed.

When they move to a different location, [height-wise], and then measure lightspeed there, it always measures the same, to the measurer, locally.

What they forgot to account-for in the process is that when they move upwards, THEIR own [measuring] reference time-frame changes too, after they add energy-value to it, and theirs is no longer the same “standard” that it was.  If additional energy must be added in to their test-reference equipment to move it [by lifting it up] into it’s “more-energetic” reference frame, can it still be ONLY worth it’s original [starting] value?

Let me state that one cannot understand this variable-energy property fully, unless one also understands that it is based upon a new concept of gravity in this universe.  Gravity works as an after-effect, which actually shows up AFTER the change has occurred.  Gravity is what already occurred, and not the real, direct cause.  I’ll save that explanation for another, later blog.

In addition, we live INSIDE a closed universe.  Our home (this universe) has always been closed-off, and always will continue to do so.  It is the exact same size now as it has always been.

Can I explain to you just why our universe has been so misunderstood, and how this has taken place?  HINT: I attempt to do so in every blog, one or two chunks at a time, and at every opportunity.

IMPORTANT NOTE: One cannot just “learn” his new concept from the existing physics and cosmology textbooks, because they all reject this “new” idea, for now.  Only here, at the C-R theory, can one find information about this new concept presented favorably, discussed logically, with conservation of energy also taken into account.  Afterwards, the C-R theory will present ways to try to help you discover how to try to check it out.  You should also notice areas where you can note events already known-about, and compare them with current events.

In order to clarify some of the modern, conventional beliefs on a closed universe, it becomes necessary to create our own definition. [The standard, textbook definition, uses outmoded concepts, which are probably wrong, and which do not make good sense.]

STATEMENT: The C-R theory needs a new definition of “A Closed Universe”* [*Our competition believes that this cannot be the case, and their definition of the Closed Universe starts off with the premise that such an object is inherently unstable, and must either expand or collapse.  They suppose this universe cannot prevent itself from collapsing.]  If their concept is WRONG , EVERY IDEA derived from it is wrong, too.

OUR [“C-R theory”] DEFINITION of a Closed Universe

A Closed Universe is a sealed-off volume of space, containing EXACTLY the sufficient amount of mass, at a proper density, to achieve a speed-of-light [“c”] escape velocity immediately inside, at the outer boundary. {The Schwarzschild radius}  VERY IMPORTANT: The net escape velocity decreases steadily while going inward, towards the center of the closed universe.  The escape velocity’s value will be minimum [or ZERO], at the center of that universe. {More correctly, ZERO from the mass of the universe, plus an external value, if any is present.}

Not a SNAP decision:

NOTE: It is NOT a coincidence that the closed universe contains exactly enough mass to close-off that universe, [or spacetime inside], it is a certainty , and the REASON that spacetime is closed off, because this inside mass is “trapped inside” right after the critical density are achieved*. *[EXAMPLE: Think of a mousetrap, snapping shut, as soon as the mouse triggers the action by going for the cheese.  Once the trap snaps shut, this also inactivates the mouse, forever, saving the cheese.]

{ANALOGY: It Is Just like it is no coincidence that a 1 Liter container of water from a factory contains exactly 1 liter of water, it has exactly what it takes to make it full.  It is automatically closed-up and sealed [capped-off] as soon as the desired threshold is achieved, by design.}

NOTE: As soon as the outermost curvature reaches the escape velocity of “c”, this closes-off, [caps or seals-up], the inside portion.  What is inside remains inside, and never gets added-to again.  Any new additions of mass consumed can only go straight into the Neutral Zone C-R , described elsewhere in the C-R theory.

For the record, in any closed universe, just like for any solid object, there is one, and only one, exact center, and there are also outside edges (or boundaries), leading up to the start of the Schwarzschild radius.  At the exact center, time there runs faster than anywhere else, and objects there will be blueshifted to everywhere else, when seen from elsewhere inside, [by us, on earth, for instance].  HINT: If we can see ANY volume of concentrated, blueshifted mass when we are inside this closed universe, then , WE ARE NOT at that universe’s center!!!

Suggestion: The Great Attractor is such a blueshifted volume, to us, the only part of this universe where objects are normally blueshifted with respect to us (unless they are actually moving towards us).  NOTE: The Great Attractor is really attracting nothing, and is a natural result of operation within a closed universe.

POINT: The Great Attractor appears blueshifted to us, without it necessarily moving, pulling or sucking us towards it.  It’s time (there) just runs faster than our time does (here) for us.

COMPARISON: Conventional theory needs a brand-new anomaly class to explain away the Great Attractor’s mass.  There is one, and only one Great Attractor, which should be a moral difficulty for non-isotropic space, where there is supposed to be no preferred reference frame.

Second POINT: If there IS one anomaly, there should also be many others, elsewhere else. [Otherwise, there is only one “preferred” Great Attractor, which the C-R theory claims coincides with our universe’s center.]

NOTE: Science has NOT found anywhere near the concentrated amount of mass at the Great Attractor to CAUSE the anomaly’s effect here, based upon what we’ve found there. {There should be enough mass there, to pull us towards that location, as distant from there as we are, here on earth.}

Third POINT: There is also no infalling of masses attracted inward, from the far side, from the masses also located behind the Great Attractor.  The objects, [masses], on it’s far side are NOT simultaneously being pulled-in towards that location, too.  This is a very important clue, which nature has shown us, available in plain sight.

A Simpler Alternative:

A (numbered) List of some Reasons Why A Closed Universe “fits” better, for what we do see in OUR universe.

1. Objects at the center of a Closed Universe, [also known as “The Great Attractor” in the big universe] are the most blueshifted, with lesser blueshifts on objects further away from the center*, but closer than earth.  (*The further-out from the center, distance-wise, the lesser the blueshift’s range will be.)

2. There is no infall in, towards the Great Attractor, from the masses back behind it, in all observations made there.  Despite the observed blueshifting, we are NOT being pulled towards there.  HINT: That means that the blueshift is time related, and not derived as the result of a Doppler shift.

3. Earth, and everyplace else on a sphere of the radius equidistant from “The Great Attractor”, will run at the same real-time rate.  This may someday be observed specifically. [HINT: That might already be archived in the existing data, if a sufficiently detailed map can be cataloged.]

4. Further out, towards the outside edges (or, as far out as we can see), objects are more redshifted (or slowed-down) with increasing distance.  NOTE: Most of the objects we DO see in our universe are in this redshifted class.

5. Regardless of the concentration of mass clumping seen at great distances, far out in this universe, there is only a modest variation in the background levels of radiation, measured in millionths of a degree.  The temperature of the background radiation is NOT modulated in any way by this mass clumping.

This new view is more compatible with: everything inside this universe, at larger distances, already is [nearly] perfectly at temperature equilibrium, in every direction, and always has been.

There should have been temperature fluxes dependent on contributions from the outer masses, with more redshift [slowdown] effect where the mass was the greatest.  This result definitely has not been the case.

Otherwise, for an expanding universe with constantly increasing expansion, the outermost regions should have been out of mutual communication range.  The thinking is,  because of expansion accelerating in all directions outward, outracing communications with everywhere-else, for 13.7 Billion years, the background temperatures should diverge in some directions.  Instead, temperatures do look nearly symmetrical, [seen from earth’s vantage point], in every direction, and the accumulated temperature differences are measured in millionths of a degree.  They should increase with increasing time, mass concentrations, and diverge widely.

This result is more compatible with the insides of a closed universe.

6. Our universe appears to be almost exactly full (of mass), at least, within two orders of magnitude.  This is no easy task, for our universe to still be nearly full, if our universe has expanded exponentially for 13.7 Billion years.  On the other hand, if our universe IS CLOSED-OFF, this universe then appears almost exactly filled BECAUSE IT IS now, EXACTLY FILLED, and always has been.

7. The self-stabilizing design of a closed universe prevents mass located outward from falling inward and collapsing.  This property permanently stabilizes the structure of our universe.* [*Barring deliberate human interference.]

8. Just as with any other, fixed “solid” mass we are familiar with, that inside mass is stable over time, neither increasing nor decreasing.

9. Not coincidentally, every Black-Hole C-R , by definition, has a closed-off, exactly critical mass at it’s center.  There may be at least “quadrillions” of Black-Holes C-R within this universe.  NOTE: Our Milky Way galaxy is estimated to have at least 20,000 lesser sized Black-Holes C-R within the central three light years around the center of the galaxy.

10. Theoreticians, is it easier to expand this universe, without having a source of energy to pay for it, or to change your perceptions, and try to find a simpler explanation?

11, Since the universe is closed-off, by our definition, the total entropy is contained safely, inside of the universe, and cannot decrease, or go “downhill” any further.  Therefore, our universe cannot just expand-away, or collapse inward.  This “sealed-off” property also keeps our total energy content approximately constant, and no internal energy ever leaks away or disappears.  HINT: Recycling does occur in this inside volume, so some amount of tradeoff is acceptable between randomness, or disorder, and order.

NOTE: If our universe was free to expand infinitely, and leak-away our energy content from the beginning, our universe COULD be doomed to a cold-dark, faded out future.  This IS NOT the case, however, with the C-R theory, and our universe functions just fine, recycling the randomness of matter inside, and confining the level of disorder.  This keeps the approximate level constant, with tradeoffs constantly regulating the overall, net entropy.

12. Ever since Edwin Hubble measured increasing redshifts with distance to far-out galaxies, science “gravitated” to the expanding universe explanation, instead of looking for a simpler alternative**. (**Since science discarded the closed universe idea, they embraced the theory of relativity, and the [Willem] de Sitter universe model, and/or expanding or contracting [unstable] universe model was accepted as a given, with increasing red shifts at a distance).

Next, outward from earth, in all directions, objects are found with increasing redshifts.  By conventional understanding, this is a result (or an artifact) from the expansion of this universe, where the universe expands faster, the further out one goes.  While this is not necessarily difficult, what really makes this tough to explain is that the universe also appears to be nearly full, within 2 orders of magnitude.  This should mean that the universe fills-up with more mass (and/or energy) as the universe expands.  This  makes the difficulty to explain the observed outcome nearly impossible to achieve, once conservation of energy is taken into account.

On the other hand, in the C-R theory, the increasing redshift at a distance is a property of the increasing curvature of matter, as one nears the outer edges.  NOTE: This increasing redshift has no constant energy-cost to us, but is provided free, as a basic, unchanging property of the universe.

This clearly visible property, that elsewhere IS NOT like earth, time-wise also makes matter nearer the outer edges WORTH LESS ENERGY [there], and thus, unable to simply “fall-in” towards the center. [unless the mass can acquire more energy, (which it simply DOES NOT HAVE)]

This “fact” makes a closed universe naturally stable, and impossible to collapse, when properly understood, by the C-R theory.  Quite unlike the Newtonian view or even the Willem de Sitter, or Georges LeMaitre view, where a universe must be either open or closed, expanding or collapsing, but can never be stable, without invoking another “mysterious force”, something called the cosmic constant .  The conventional, Newtonian view, mistakenly concludes that such a universe system must be naturally unstable, something like a giant house of cards, where the slightest disturbance will collapse the entire, flimsy structure.


THROW IN SOME FINE IRONY  or pun: [Just some STABLE thinking]

This is an IRONIC aside here, when one considers just how stable science has found the proton to be, where the half life of each individual proton must exceed over 10 33 years, as measured by experiments observing large pools of water for possible proton instability.  No hints of proton decay have ever been observed .  How strange it is that mainstream science routinely accepts the proton’s stability, but cannot simply accept that our universe, too, which is stuffed with an estimated [approximately] 10 80 protons (and probably about as many neutrons, too), should be thought-of as equally as stable?

Using the C-R theory, and gravitational curvature as a guide, one can see how nature automatically stabilizes the structure of this universe, and incorporates properties into it’s nature (or it’s natural state) that assure self-stability.  With the C-R theory, we should see a blueshifted volume, in one direction, with increasing redshifts in all directions (including, behind the Great Attractor).  HINT: We do.

NOTE: This universe NEVER needs additional [or externally stocked], energy sources to provide energy.  The energy content of this universe is stable, and because it is self-contained within it’s confines, and can never radiate-away elsewhere (as in: escape to anywhere outside of this universe’s inside), it never leaks away, or fades out, or winds down, with time.  In this case only, the net entropy of this universe (contained safely inside) is always constant, BECAUSE it is CONTAINED [and NOT EXPANDING away].

While I will not cover most of this trapped [constant] entropy example in this blog, the basic properties of matter are so constructed as to practically recycle, and restore entropy to both matter and energy over the long term.  That topic is covered within the C-R theory, for those interested readers who wish to find more about this concept.

Where this all fits-in, the properties on this earth vary with location change.  Even with a mere 33 cm. boost, time runs measurably faster, referenced from the old height.  This means that spacetime everywhere else also should not be identical in all directions, and therefore, the changes to the properties of space, [i.e., our universe], must account for the actual differences we do see.

NOTE: The C-R theory starts with a whole different set of assumptions about what the properties of this closed universe are like, and which also visually agrees with what is actually seen.


Some of the most profound starting assumptions the C-R theory uses are:

1.  There NEVER was a Big Bang, or a start to our universe. [There were, however, lesser supernovae, that behaved somewhat like mini-Big Bangs, on a much more local level, but which were and still are ongoing.]

2.  The 2.7K background radiation is the “averaged-out” sum of the day to day operations within this universe, but is continually replenished, and will never “cool-down” with time.  This 2.7K was mistaken for a Doppler-shifted {cooled-down} starting remnant of the Big Bang, cooled for 13.7 Billion years.  It was just accepted, without proof, and without questions.

3.  This universe ALWAYS existed, and there never was a real beginning*. [* The earth’s existence may have happened more recently, including our full solar system.]

4.  The 2.7K IS NOT cooling-down with time, but will ALWAYS measure at 2.7K, as seen from earth’s location.

5.  Seen from elsewhere in this universe, the 2.7K background radiation WILL change, and will measure differently, depending on where in this universe the viewer or measurer resides.  NOTE: The background temperature value will also remain constant at those different locations, and those values will not vary [cool-off] with increasing time as seen from THERE.

6.  Only as seen from The Great Attractor, our universe will appear identical to what the theory of relativity expects this universe to look like, seen from everywhere inside.  Everything at a distance will appear with an increasing redshift, in all directions, and NO volumes of blueshifts will be seen.

7.  When this universe is observed from any other vantage point, all volumes of spacetime closer-in to the Great Attractor will appear blueshifted, while everything else more distant will still appear to be redshifted, in ALL directions, equally.

8.  Further out from earth’s vantage point, when looking back inside, towards the center, the volume that will comprise the Great Attractor, from there,  will appear increasingly blue, and vastly larger.  [We will have to travel to elsewhere to observe it.]

9.  Our universe’s size and volume are stable, and remain relatively unchanging with time, although individual components like stars and galaxies will interact, and recycle over a very long scale.

10.  The structure of our universe is stable, gravitationally, and CANNOT POSSIBLY collapse inward.  The structure is also stable, over time.

I will not attempt to justify all of those items from this blog.  They are each covered [though not necessarily in that order], in the C-R theory.

Just say: COOL IT!!

Of course, the easiest way to tell the difference in the 2.7K background, is to wait a billion years, and measure for both possibilities again.  If there is NO difference in the two temperatures, [the starting 2.7 K, and the ending one], after 1 billion years elapsed time, and the background radiation still measures the same 2.7K, the C-R theory is correct.  If the background radiation has cooled-down by about 1/14th, or is at 13/14 of the starting value, [as it is NOW measured at 2.7K today, from earth], and measures about 2.5K in one billion years, the C-R theory is wrong, and possibly exists that the Big Bang, or it’s successor, could be right on this one point.

Just say: Wait a minute, BUT NOT much MORE!!!:

Quite probably, even the way-above-average home reader, patience-wise, will find that a 1 billion year time interval is too substantial to wait, just to sway their judgement.  NOTE: In the short time this background radiation has been observed, there is far too little ongoing change measured to guess or to know.  HINT: Mainstream science IS NOT looking for any amount of observable cool-off in the 2.7 K anyway, so they are unlikely to find it.


To get back to the contest, the C-R theory wants to find a suitable, scientific sounding name or term, capable of holding-up for at least the next 1,000 years, to describe this energy-variable property of mass, varying by position.

NOTE: I discussed in the last blog that I do not (yet) know if this property-change in energy is analog and continuous, or discrete and quantized, at the smallest scales.  Is it partially dimensional, something fractal-like*, where the dimensionality increases [or decreases] incrementally, at the smallest possible scales, thus allowing a net, “capacity-change-like” increase [or decrease] in energy, or time gained [or lost]?

[* My current suspicion is that this universe’s energy-change property of a mass is fractal-like, literally increasing or decreasing the dimensionality of this universe.  On the micro-miniature scales, energy {as real-time} is added-on, or trimmed-back, as, when curvature increases, in a more intense gravity.  To consider just how small this magnitude of change is, just look at the 1 part in 10 16th time increase gained when an atomic clock is lifted-up by about 1 meter.]

The proposed new property-name should hold-up well whatever the ultimate “cause” turns-out to be.  NOTE: If this property change indeed is the case, it makes it far easier to understand just why a mass could only drop to the MAXIMUM curvature, where that location ALSO corresponds to the MINIMUM energy location.  It could not continue to accelerate back into lesser levels, especially not all the way back to ZERO curvature at the center, as the Newtonians have been lead [better yet, indoctrinated and brainwashed] to believe, unless it gained the additional energy needed to travel there..


The winning new name could be based upon a prominent scientist or mathematician’s name [but not using the same names again that are already honored-by and identified-with other property measurements, like Newtons or Plancks].  The new term could also be an acronym, a word-like mnemonic derived from abbreviations of a short phrase or description.

The term could be playful or punful, or based off of some link in literature to an existing historical or fictional figure, or connected by a Lewis-Carrollian-type of logic, poking gentle [or not so gentle] fun at the establishment or the status-quo. [There could be said to be something “Cheshire Cat”-like about the property, as it blends-in to the background, or disappears, and “covers it’s tracks”.  When science looks-for it, or looks-at it, it seemingly vanishes into nothingness.]

A more biting type of satire, such as Jonathan Swift used, might also be acceptable, but comes closer to crossing the fine-line towards offending some {or most} of the intended target audience, angering them at the C-R theory in the process.  I would, instead, rather gently include them in to the jokes rather than use the dear home readers as the intended targets of intellectual barbs.

While I could “sell-out” to a sufficiently-high bidding egomaniac or commercial entity, and surrender the naming rights to a [short term] commercial interest, the relatively short-lived-lives of many commercial companies, which regularly get bought-up, renamed, or sold-off, to have their “good”-name discarded, is not a promising role-model for naming this type of proposed term, that is intended [and needed], to last for at least the next 1,000 years.

Normally, the author or originator of the idea has sole claim on this naming right, but in an egalitarian fashion, I have decided to harness the vast creativity of the entire pool of our home readers to chime-in, and propose their favorite word or term-candidates.  {I would be tempted to apologize if later in this millennium if someone else starts an additional contest to name yet another newly discovered property of this universe, but I would not count on it happening again.}

A TERM of Endearment (to our home readers)

Most of all, I would like to find a new term that seems enjoyable to say, pleasantly suited for slow-cogitation or “pondering-over” repeatedly, while the true usefulness of the concept (of energy-value of a mass changing with altitude or vertical position), soaks in and sprouts.  Again, while I really do not know just HOW the universe “adjusts” matter’s properties, the C-R theory almost demands that the mass itself changes in a subtle way, increasing as it is lifted-up, increasing it’s energy content, or decreasing as it is dropped down, shedding kinetic energy, proportionately to real time lost.

NOTE: It is NEVER the “gravitational field” itself that is doing “the work” (of changing the mass’s energy levels).  It is, rather, the ability of a mass to “store-up” or “release” [or shed], the energy difference directly, that the true energy-change takes place.  HINT: Consider a huge dam, storing or releasing minute amounts of water on a very small scale, at nearly imperceptible level changes, when it is compared to it’s total capacity.

By the time the universe “modulates-in or -out” the changes to a mass, all the way out to the outer edges, where time completely stops, (at least as a “measurable or detectable” quantity), that whole process drastically changes the energy-worthiness of the mass.  Once that mass enters into the Neutral Zone C-R , that unique volume of spacetime where the escape velocity exceeds lightspeed, no interactions of any kind are possible.  This effectively neutralizes matter, positionally, and traps it in the lowest possible [real time] energy location.

What is very important to notice is that, ALL matter at the outer edges is worth much less energy than that same mass would have, if it was moved nearer to the center.  This difference totally prevents “any-old mass” from outlying areas elsewhere, from “just dropping in” for an unexpected visit to the center, as the Newtonian competition would be “EXPECTED” to easily do.  This “energy lack, or absence”, prevents our universe from simply collapsing inward .

Because the mass, existing nearer the outer edges, is worth so much less energy, without acquiring [new] additional energy from somewhere else, {and that any additional energy is just NOT normally available}, this completely stabilizes the structure of this universe, in a way IMPOSSIBLE for a Newtonian believer to understand or to even accept, [as they have been brought-up to DEMAND that “gravity” always attracts every mass inwards, towards the center of the mass, BECAUSE , THAT is what gravity DOES ].

NOTE: If we could somehow compare the same mass (or two different masses), side by side, the first one from earth’s location and an external location very close to the outer edge, we should easily be able to tell the difference.  Unfortunately, to move the mass to somewhere else, we would either have to input energy, or remove energy. {When humanity CAN do this, and then note the energy required, there will be no debate, THEN.}

What the C-R theory is trying to show and to demonstrate is: Gravity {acting thru  gravitational curvature} only ATTRACTS a mass to a GREATER curvature.  ONCE ANY mass is AT the GREATEST curvature, the attraction CEASES.  NOTE: PLEASE, please, please, do NOT just take my WORD for it, but test gravity for yourself.

Whenever you toss any mass [up] into a lesser curvature, that mass loves to visit, but simply cannot stay.  It always returns BACK TO a greater curvature, whenever WE CAN test it!!!  However, MASS, never, NEVER, NEVER , falls back into lesser curvature from a GREATER curvature in ANY experiment we CAN DESIGN, and TEST .  NOTE: If it did, I would not be reporting this to you home readers, now.

The above property, with gravity only attracting mass into a GREATER curvature, is EXCLUSIVELY noticed ONLY in a closed universe, where spacetime itself is non isotropic, or, not the same in all directions.

NOTE: All of the properties EXPECTED to be found in this model, are seen, within our universe.  What is amazing is: Those properties come naturally from our understanding of the closed universe, and there is no coercion necessary to get these properties to stand-out.

When viewed from the earth, anything running faster, or clocking faster, than us, appears blueshifted to us.  Just outside of the center of the universe, matter starts to run just a bit slower, but still faster than everywhere further outside our location.  As far as one can go, from the center, outward, time there runs (or clocks) slower.  These properties are NORMAL to a closed universe, and no anomalies are required.

SPECIAL NOTE: When trapping matter, the Black-Hole C-R will even trap 100% of the neutrinos trying to pass through.  I intend to expand upon this idea, later in this blog, to suggest something truly outrageous, if room and time permit. [HINT: They DID!!!]

More info on the Contest:

The property naming contest is open to anyone living on this planet, of any age, who can read the C-R theory, and propose their best candidate for a term.  One may also write from 100-500 words in support of the term (or in the derivation, if it is obtuse, but interesting or link-worthy), but the writing is not necessary to win.

[The best term will win, even if another term’s supporting essay is the clear winner, dialog-wise.]  HINT: Something like Cheshire-cat units [Ccu’s] might help convey the evanescence of the property, coming-and-going, or appearing and disappearing, as a suitable example of the proper quest to achieve both creativity and whimsy.  If no-one else proposes anything better, it could win by default, or by near-unanimous home reader acclaim and preference.

Due to my delays in posting this blog, the contest will be extended until at least April 30, 2013, and I will shortly thereafter post the finalists and runners-up, if any are received, in a new blog, as any blog posted for May or later, in 2013.  The home-readers will then have some amount of time to lobby, petition, or bribe the judges, advising what their favorite proposed term is.  NOTE: I have not simply created the winning term already, and am using the contest to drum-up interest, with no earthly chance of someone else winning.  In short, may the BEST term win.

Other than the singular “honor” of creating the first new term describing the basic properties of this universe, no financial gain or recompense is promised.  The author might be impressed enough by a creative-winner to partially empty his wallet and fund a modest token of appreciation. [If a winning “bribe” is accepted, up to 9/10 of the total amount could be awarded-out to runners-up, with the rest supporting the upkeep and modernization of the C-R theory web-site.]

That I know-of, no other scientific endeavor has ever proposed allowing one of the home readers the possible honor of crafting a new term to cover a truly basic property of this universe. {Science is not even looking for such a property, so they are quite unlikely to find anything of the kind, either.}  This opportunity may be YOUR last, and BEST chance, EVER, to name a basic property of this universe.  This unique opportunity may never be repeated again*. [*Unless this universe is BRIMMING with additional, undiscovered, {therefore}, yet unnamed, properties, waiting to be found, and the next scientific group so liked this contest’s result that they too might want to give the entire world an additional chance to name the next one to be found.]  Good luck to all of you contestants.  MAY the BEST term WIN!!!

Good luck to all entrants, if any.  For now, post your proposed candidates in the comments section at the bottom of the home page or the comments section, at the bottom of the blog.  Then take the short, game-like, Are You a Human test, normally taking under 10 seconds, to complete the task.  If I can create a suitable, stand-alone entry form, before the contest ends, that will be the preferred location for name suggestions.

As if on cue, I just noticed that this past month’s Scientific American, December, 2012 issue, had an article/essay by David Tong, titled: The Unquantum Quantum , starting on page 46, proposing that this universe is likely to be analog, and continuous, after all of it’s properties are found-out.  He goes on to note that, in Chemistry, the Schrodinger equation, yields whole, digital-like frequency emission steps, even though that equation is entirely continuous and analog, and not digital.  The equation still yields unique and singular, discreet output frequencies.  The essayist also noted that there are some simple properties that cannot be re-created digitally, but can only be approximated, at best, for matter constrained into a theoretical digital matrix, vs. matter actually existing in an ordered state, while attempting to simulate the real-world properties of matter in those minimum energy states.  The digital simulations just cannot capture (or anticipate) the real-world events.

Again, the fact that we cannot yet, fully understand this universe, using digital simulations, does not make the situation hopeless.  We still have adequate “wiggle-room” in trying to incorporate measures for that new property where differences in curving-spacetime do vary a mass’s energy with position.

In order to assist in describing this property more fully to others, it is time to give this condition a good, sound, scientific name.  However we eventually come to understand just how this property is implemented, the term will facilitate the discussion of this property.  NOTE: I have not given-up on finding a suitable name, all alone, by myself, but I have also opened-up the pool of possible selections to choose-from worldwide.

[FURTHER CLARIFICATION: If any extraterrestrials can find a way to enter, {in English}, I would not exclude them on that basis.  Whether they would understand the contest rules, in English, well enough to comply, could be an issue.]  I would honestly choose a better term, provided by someone else, over a finely-crafted term I had created, if I liked the sound, or the derivation of the property-name better, or if I thought it would hold-up better for the next 1,000 years.

In judging, I will select the term that I, and the other judge(s), decide is the BEST to represent the C-R theory ideas positively over the long term, and will resonate suitably with the greatest number of home readers.  [Ballot-box stuffing measures, such as spam voting repeatedly for a “favorite-son” term, by your spam-bot, will be eliminated and discounted.  On the other hand, I will take into consideration the suggestions from a greatest number of individual parties, who singularly vote-for, and rally persuasively, behind their favorite term name.

The author, may, at some time after the contest closes, provide a modest amount of funds in appreciation of the winning term, and runner(s)-up. {Entries provided by a collective group, or organizations, will not be eligible for the financial rewards, but could still be chosen as the best term.}

Whether To OPEN and/or SHUT your TRAP:

I mentioned earlier in this blog that I would expand upon the idea that the Black-Hole C-R would not permit neutrinos to pass through, but would also trap them inside, as well as heat and light.  While I cannot state that this next concept will ever become reality, it is possible [or thinkable], that far-future scientists and engineers will be able to exploit the conditions of the Black-Hole C-R enough to modulate a stream of neutrinos, and/or to store up neutrinos inside a Black-Hole C-R , for bulk release at a specific time.

What I was contemplating was, it may be possible to modulate, or manipulate a specially constructed Black-Hole C-R in such a way that scientists could manipulate the positioning and layout of large volumes of external matter, strategically placed, symmetrically, outside the “Official” Black-Hole C-R , so as to allow a hair-trigger shifting state, verging between achieving a critical mass, and pulling back some mass near the Schwarzschild radius, leaving the inside mass barely sub-critical.

I envision something akin to the construction of atomic bombs, which separate two (or more) sub-critical radioactive masses in such a way that they can be quickly brought together and go critical, then, KABOOM!!!  [But, with the addition of a recovery state built-in, to possibly allow the internal Black-Hole C-R to be pulled-back from the brink, switched on and off, on a repeatable and regular basis.

What I imagined is that it may be possible to surround a [nearly] sub-critical (but very dense central mass) with one or more external partial rings of dense mass, located  immediately outside the Schwarzschild radius, supporting “dangling masses” in such a way that their locations can both be brought-in, together, closer-in to the central mass, or pulled-away, re-located further from the central mass.

It may be possible to symmetrically place additional contributing masses around the barely sub-critical center in such a way as to cause it to achieve a critical mass-density, and become a Black-Hole C-R .  The real trick would be, could that process also be reversed, by externally pulling-back away many of the attached, outer masses out back again, away from the center, losing the critical density threshold, to repeatedly reverse the process? [Flash on and off at will, maybe within an hour or two’s time window, maybe days or weeks in worse case scenarios.]

The true test would be, would the way to connect the dispersed masses remain connected (enough) to again pull back the masses, to recover each of the individual, outer masses, or would the connection be forever severed, once each mass was located  inside the Black-Hole’s C-R Schwarzschild radius?

THE “SIGNATURE” Edition: [A Neutrino Prism?]

The “hallmark” signature of this ability would be the possible modulation of a stream of neutrinos, and/or the possible deflection of the neutrino beam at up-to-right angles, somewhat like: what a prism does to change or deflect a lightbeam’s direction.

NOTE: Under normal circumstances, neutrinos are very non-interactive.  I have read that a beam of neutrinos could traverse through a lightyear-thick (length wise) solid lead block, with only a 50% reduction in the beam strength.

This begs the question, do advanced civilizations already possess this technology, somewhere in this universe,  and, are they using it now?  Then, can we detect instances where this could be the case, and find instances of tightly modulated, or flashed, neutrino beams?

This concept of harnessing a “designed” Black-Hole’s C-R properties as a “tool” far exceeds the building of a Dyson sphere in difficulty, where an advanced civilization builds a sphere around a star, to totally harness, or harvest and utilize, the full energy output of the star.  The true question is, would this difficult feat be possible, even in 10,000 years, or more like a million years or a billion years into humanity’s future?

Would humanity discover some technical trick to allow this triggering action much sooner, say, in less than 1,000 years?  Would practical innovations from this harnessing result in something that would benefit everyone, or only one special interest group, with very large pockets, to pay for it, and very deep pockets to fill-up again, with the profits they gained from it’s use.?

After 2012 has drawn to a close, I would wish all our readers a happy and prosperous 2013 New Year.  I hope the C-R theory has proved beneficial for you, and given you something new to consider.  I want the home reader to have their horizons broadened.  My ultimate goal is to better understand our universe, and to help as many others as I can, to achieve the same (or better) level for themselves.

These ideas are either right or wrong, or somewhere in-between.  What really counts is do these ideas help YOU to understand our universe better?  If it does, then I have been successful.  If you only feel more confused, then I have failed, for the moment.  If I succeed in planting the seeds of wisdom, they may take a while to germinate, then to bear fruit. {Time will be needed to fully grasp these ideas, after first exposure.}

If you want to ask questions, or give your comments, use the comments sections at the bottom of the page.  If you find the C-R theory helpful, please recommend it to your friends.  If you hate it, please recommend it to your enemies.  Either way, we could use the publicity.

Jerry Reynard   Last modified/edited on January 27th, 2013