C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

July 4thspecial update: I just got my electric power back tonight, after waiting 4 days of near 100° F temperatures, having finished this blog.  Before I could send it, a whole line of power poles, which supplied my electric power, snapped in a Friday night storm, and delayed this being posted.

As I get ready to send this out, the headline on the news tonight is announcing the possible discovery of the Higgs boson, also called the God particle.  This needs more explanation, with my blog entry later, a few pages down.  I will have the C-R theory comment on this idea, but I would like to state that I seriously doubt this particle will help explain anything.  I will also state that the C-R theory maintains that every particle’s mass and energy still change incrementally, and this is what actually causes what we deem is gravity.

I plan to start the next blog tonight, as soon as I e-mail this blog out.  I will still celebrate the discovery of another sub-atomic particle, but I would caution readers not to expect ANY help to YOUR personal understanding from the Higgs boson.  My personal belief is that gravity is still working along the new way claimed by the C-R theory.  This will prove to be far easier to understand that the “mad, catch and toss, perpetual interchange of virtual Higgs bosons, weighing far more than the particles they are supposed to give mass to.”

I would like to belatedly welcome both our 45,000 th visitor to the home page, and also welcome the 44,000 th visitor for some time back in May, when I started writing this blog.  It has taken this web-site a long time to achieve that number, and they are hard-to-come-by visitors, too.  I am encouraged by the number of return visitors, who return to bookmarked locations, and not just land-on the homepage, who make up a majority of visitors.

Compared to “the good old days” years ago, when I considered 30-40 visitors a week was a good week, now we are averaging from 500-700 visitors to all sections of the web-site per week (and not just those visiting only the home page), and we have had occasional 800+ visitor weeks.  Again, I thank everyone who visits, and I want to offer you some new methods of understanding our universe that are not available anywhere else.

HINT: (I would welcome anyone re-posting these ideas anywhere else, even if you wish to mock them.  I want these ideas to be considered and evaluated on their merits, and on the new insights they might provide.)

For those first-time visitors, or those who have not visited the blog portion before, I try to keep up with the latest developments here, and alert readers to noteworthy items of possible interest, and items which might highlight important differences in expectations, unique to the C-R theory.

I ran out of time to write-about all the items I wanted to comment on, so there will be some leftover items I will save for the next blog.  I was originally hoping to post this in May, but I got delayed, and now June is almost over. (Now it is July.)

I almost feel like it is Christmas, for the C-R theory, every time a new science magazine comes out with items in astronomy or cosmology.  There are always new items that seem to contain details involving new possibilities for understanding how our universe works, using the C-R theory, that mainstream science could not understand, because they have rejected so much, by ignoring anything involving large-scale sightings of electromagnetic energy or stray electrical charges.  They ignore the concept that: current flows, magnetic fields, polarized light patterns, and the like could have systemic patterns, and repeatedly show-up “where they are not wanted or expected”.

This kind-of leaves a smorgasbord of new items every week and every month for the C-R theory to pick-from as supporting the possibility that only the C-R theory ideas might be useful in collectively understanding these phenomena, together.  See the item below, as an example.

SCIENCE “finds the answer they’re looking for”, then throws it away, as unexpected.

There are always several important new magazine articles I would like to comment upon.  One of the first was a brief item I had overlooked earlier, from the March, 2012 Astronomy magazine, a short article on page #16, by Bill Andrews, from an article in Nature, stating that in the {Southern} Pinwheel Galaxy, M33, one of the closest full-on galaxies to ours, a recent finding was that in the 6, new- star-forming cloud regions, in the orientations of each of the 6 arms, the magnetic fields in the new-star-forming regions aligned with the shape of the arms.  Each arm had a magnetic field matching the arm’s orientation, where star formation was taking place.  

NOTE: This galaxy should not be confused with M101, the Pinwheel galaxy we see in the Northern hemisphere.

While the study may have been “checking for new-star forming regions”, from the C-R theory point-of-view, this is extremely important evidence that there are abundant electromagnetic fields present in each-one of these galactic arms, and these fields also help to guide (or influence) the galaxy’s shape.  What it means is: Astronomers have actually “found the answer to why galaxy’s arms hold-together”, and thrown that evidence away (or ignored it) because they only expect that: “IT IS only DARK MATTER’S GRAVITY” that holds galaxy arms together, by mutually-common agreement.

The most important point is that here is a good example that science has totally overlooked the possibility that it is just those same electromagnetic fields that contribute generously to shape and to hold-together galaxies, and that the contributions to shape-holding are not just restricted to “gravity” from both “the normal matter that we can see”, and “the dark matter, which has never showed-up in any experiment or observation”.

After all, electromagnetic energy is some 10 to the 40 th power times as strong as gravity in any one-on-one atom’s encounter.  Where electric charges are flowing abundantly, there should also be “driving electromagnetic fields”.

I just read this last week a claim that 99% of the known matter in this universe is ionized, and exists in the state of a plasma.  That should give one a “clue” as to whether understanding how electric and magnetic fields affect ionized matter might help astronomers to better understand simple processes going on “in our own cosmic backyard”.

While it does not specifically support the C-R theory ideas, I did find a web article about another new theory which does support the idea that thrust from a plasma could affect the galaxy arm shapes, and so might be useful to the home readers to influence their understanding.  See: http://aias.us/documents/otherPapers/galaxies.pdf

There was another recent item about 400 red giant stars hanging out in locations perpendicular to our Milky-Way galaxy, which are incompatible with dark matter’s additional mass, but were compatible with the estimated gravity from known masses in our galaxy.  

 See: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120419-dark-matter-sun-missing-stars-milky-way-space-science/

This was excellent news for the C-R theory, which is one of the few theories that does not want or need any evidence for the presence of dark matter.  After all, why not look for evidence from “THE OTHER KNOWN FORCE (electromagnetism)” which could contribute to galaxy-arm molding, rotating, and driving.

In the June 2012 issue of Scientific American, there was an article about antimatter-assisted supernovae, on page 44, by Avishay Gal-Yam.  It is an attempt to help science understand how the most powerful supernovae occur.  Previous supercomputer studies, even in 2010, supernovas simply fizzle-out when instead, for the most massive type stars, they should explode.  This article suggests that antimatter may be created at a key moment, and that this antimatter contribution may be what triggers the explosion.

The article does cover aspects of what is known and measured about supernovae that is useful to know, and to consider.  In the next paragraph, I sum up the C-R theory’s ideas, which might also be helpful, if they were ever considered.

A Brief Overview of the C-R theory differences in thinking about supernovae exploding:

The C-R theory maintains that, it is the newly uncovered nature of the Black-Hole C-R dining process, where the most extreme stars are all powered by a Black-Hole C-R , because that process is so much more energy-efficient than fusion.  Immediately inside, those Black-Holes C-R concentrate huge quantities of neutrons and protons, in an electrically neutralized manner.  Later, it is the sudden release of these charges, that enables the real supernovae to overcome limitations to fusion-powered reactions.  Science does not yet recognize this mechanism, and ignores hidden clues to it’s existence.  I will leave it to the informed reader to decide as to which process might be more likely to occur.

The June 2012 issue of Astronomy had an article on page 30 about the 6 most important numbers in the Universe, by Bill Andrews.  Item number one was the speed of light.  Probably the C-R theory is one of the few places where the non-similarity of the speed-of-light “everywhere” is taken seriously.  The C-R theory says that the speed-of-light changes gradually, and incrementally, wherever we go, and that the speed-of-light varies, by location, and by distance from the center of this universe*.

*This change in the speed-of-light affects the energy content of matter, too.

Since “Science” believes differently, they automatically “correct” any appearance of a different time rate [the red shift], then assume that our time-rate from Earth applies equally everywhere else.  Once this choice is made, no evidence to the contrary is accepted, it is just “corrected-away”.  That assures us that we never run the risk of asking: Is this truly so? [That is the C-R theory “spin” on that part of the article.]

Item number 3, the Gravitational Constant,”G”,  is the next part where the C-R theory view is very different.  This is the least precisely “known” constant, for very good reason.  There is no constant, G, at all.  There are merely varying degrees of decoupling, or de-activation, or turning-off of some portion of matter’s energy-levels, which also varies by location.  It just so happens, that, at earth’s surface, that value is approximately what “G”  was assumed to be: a constant.

This is why the C-R theory is almost unique in claiming that a ball will only fall to MAXIMUM curvature, but never continue to fall back to ZERO curvature. [I’ll say more about this later in this blog.]

A very important reason that the value for G cannot be correct, as determined, is that earth’s densest mass is mostly concentrated deep down, far below earth’s surface, and earth’s density is not constant .  If we could run our entire planet earth through a “sausage-grinder-like” apparatus, and even-out earth’s density uniformly, we would all instantly weigh considerably more. [It is somewhere between 30-41% more, but I need to find the correct value again.]

The truest picture of curvature-driven gravity I can state is: that G is something like an efficiency measurement, listing the “local” effectiveness of gravitational curvature in turning-off (or partly slowing-down) time, in a more intense gravitational “field”.  Thus, at the Core-Mantle-Boundary (CMB), gravity would be at a higher local maximum, there, and could not further change matter by falling more, and G could add no additional value to contribute to more gravity.  G would effectively disappear, or change to a value of 0 at earth’s center, for all practical purposes.

The value of G should also change by location, height, and underlying density, and thus, no measurements taken in one location can fully take into consideration how gravity would change somewhere else.  Please read through the C-R theory for a more thorough treatment of G. (or, why the gravitational constant is NOT constant at all)

The final number covered in the article was #6, the Hubble Constant, is also another “fictional” number, in the C-R theory view.  This is because, if we live in a fixed, closed universe, as the C-R theory claims, our universe is not expanding, and it is not increasing in size, speed, or acceleration.  All of those notions are based on the misunderstanding of the evidence we see, specifically, in assuming those redshifted objects that we see at a distance are all running (time-wise) exactly-like our time-rate here on earth.

If the time-rates elsewhere in this universe are mostly slower, as would be indicated by their visual redshifts, then any conclusions reached by disregarding that observation must be incorrect.  Again, this blog reference is merely a summary, and the home reader is encouraged to read either of the varieties of the C-R theory for fuller treatment.

Because we simultaneously see increasing redshifts with increasing distances in all directions, and blueshifts towards the Great Attractor, our universe is very unlikely to be both expanding and contracting simultaneously.  The C-R theory has selected another, simpler explanation.

Again, mainstream science does not yet accept the C-R theory ideas, and this could be why they have such a difficulty in understanding some of the most fundamental day-to-day operations in this universe.  The C-R theory ideas are so “foreign” to their thinking, that it seems like foolishness to them, and is considered as such by them.

I try to make most of my arguments based upon simple observations, and alternate views.   I also try for simplicity.  I can accept that many new readers will not start-off believing any of the C-R theory’s ideas, because they are so different.   THAT is why I blog!!!!

(See my comments at the start of the blog, on the announcement of the Higgs boson.)

One of the items predicted here, first, was the lack of any significant, new developments expected from the LHC, [Large Hadron Collider], despite the billions of dollars (or Euros) invested in it, and the thousands of physicists devoting a major chunk of their careers to operating and staffing it.  The biggest reason I felt so confident in this was that, the entire concept the LHC was built to prove or enhance: the Big Bang scenario, (and to try to gain additional insight into it), was fictional, or non-existent.

Even if many major new particles had been detected by now, the C-R theory claimed that no new insights would have been provided that would prove significant.  (by adding either more precision, or more limitations for the starting conditions imposed upon our “knowledge” of the { supposed } first 3 minutes of the Big Bang process)

The entire big-bang scenario is false, and no amount of money spent to enhance it can fix it, if it is totally WRONG . (I would agree, though, that the C-R theory views are, so far, regarded as too obscure to be relevant, and they are so far from mainstream thinking, that the “experts” simply discard it completely.)

One of the reasons I have posted this blog on-line is that I can make my case of simple logic directly to some of you home-readers, who have not yet learned “that science does not work that way”.  I have tried, through my blogs, to show at least 100 places to look-at, and items to notice, that highlight the expected new places where many of the C-R theory ideas seem to be supported by nature, at a rate far-above random chance or simple good-luck.

I believe I have major new insights into the inner workings of our universe, and I am offering them freely to everyone who cares to consider them.  You will not yet find them anywhere else, until I can get the world to acknowledge them (or disprove them).  The clues are everywhere, once one knows where to look, and what to look for.

If you do not believe me, perhaps you would listen to nature, and learn from those published items that I have observed these last 30 years or more.  I try to give everyone the choice, to accept the obvious, or to dismiss everything I have noticed as a run-away imagination, with no scientific value added.

The best thing, however is to check with nature, and take HER answer at face value.  While I would accept that the “World’s Greatest Experts” do not believe this is the proper course, I am asking the more humble home-readers to allow themselves to “weigh-in” on the topic of gravity.  The best explanation is one that YOU understand, not necessarily the one “the experts” think that THEY understand better.


Let me make one possible practical suggestion as far as the use of the LHC and all of it’s associated components.  Instead of colliding together high numbers of energetic particles, and sifting through the debris looking for those needles in a haystack, trying to find the extremely rare aftermath of a single, rare collision, why not just drastically increase the precision and control of each individual sub-atomic particle, over the entire ranges of energies, and then, “precision-collide” each pair, by millions of small, sideways increments, and observe the resulting resonances and interactions that way.

Instead of sorting through piles of “rubbish”, look for the quirks (in the quarks) and new complications as each set of particles is “precision smashed”.  Would not our advances in precision-CONTROL of the sub-atomic particles be better-served than if our understanding of what happens only comes from “when everything jumbled is collided at once”?

Spend your time perfecting the individual control and guidance of each particle, and look for new and creative ways to “cheat, undermine or bypass” the limitations in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Try modulating sub-aspects of each particle (or attempt at entangling it, up to ultra-high energies), and coaxing subtleties and new patterns of behavior out of the collisions, but under precisely controlled conditions.  It might be possible to bring together 3, 4, or more particles in a pre-determined, yet highly-regulated set order and with known, phase-relationships, that can advance us into new technologies, WHICH WILL benefit ALL of mankind.

Could we achieve 1 million precise, sub-increments of proton to proton collisions, from glancing blows to full, head on smash-ups for each energy-level?  Might not that prove more immediately useful that a violent, throwing-together of anything that can be accelerated together, and just hope that something noticeable results each time?  Is this level of precision truly beyond present day techniques, if human creativity is challenged, and directed to this new goal?

At least, we might achieve something much more useful for the billions already spent.

Re-Visiting a simple Experiment that EVERYONE should do for themselves.

What I am suggesting is that I have “discovered” an experiment, so simple and cheap, that ANYONE can do, at any time of the day, without needing an extravagant budget, expensive equipment, or near super-human abilities (and intelligence) to perform. [HINT: Many of us have done this experiment many times, but without considering a key “new” point.]

The only “NEW” part of the idea is to ADD a key item, a new thought to say (or think about it) while performing the experiment.

The best way to do the experiment is to obtain a reasonable sized ball (but a rock or a can of soup, or any suitable-sized mass could be substituted), toss it up, into the air, or into “lesser” gravitational curvature, and note if and when the ball returns back (if able), into greater curvature again.  Repeat as many times as is necessary to convince YOU that the ball does chose this option every time.

The “NEW” part is to also tell yourself, while doing so: “When I toss the ball up, into LESSER curvature, it loves to visit, but it slows down, reverses it’s direction, and returns back, into greater curvature, every time.” [If you obtain any other results, on a consistent basis, please let me know.]

What I am seriously trying to convey is that: Nature quite probably already does this, only lets the object drop to MAXIMUM curvature, everytime, publicly, and will always do so.  While this experiment, technically, DOES NOT prove that gravity does so, it certainly demonstrates it to a very high degree of reliability.  STRONG HINT: If the ball always drops to greater curvature HERE, when it is publicly tested, and it NEVER accelerates towards (or into) LESSER curvature, during any test, is that observation not likely to hold-up elsewhere, too?

HINT: THAT is what science is supposed to be ALL about.  Can you suggest an experiment, DO it, and LEARN something simple, obvious, and repeatable, from what YOU observe?

Now for the next part, the home-reader is invited to check out current on-line sources, or a local library, and find out for themselves whether or not this next part is accurate. {Does earth’s density increase substantially, as one descends to the Core-Mantle Boundary?}

Let me state, the earth is somewhat unique among planets, in that it’s density substantially increases towards earth’s center.  Earth’s density is not uniform, or consistent throughout. [NOTE: Most high-school and college textbooks simplify matters, and make a general assumption that treats the earth’s density as-if it was uniform, because it makes student’s calculations more easy.]

A slightly revised realization that I was partially wrong, and I would like to correct a minor issue, for the record, here and now. [or: an error correction attempt]

Something I just noticed recently, which fooled me temporarily (for over twenty years or more), is the realization that, when travelling down, towards earth’s center, at least, down to earth’s Core-Mantle Boundary (CMB), [even though the “force” of gravity should fade-out by the square], because the density more than doubles, the mass per volume increases as the cube, (to the third power).

Usually, this works in reverse, as things get larger, as when we compare the thicker limbs needed-by an elephant, as compared to those spindly limbs of the mouse.  Because the volume increases as the cube, and the bone strength only increases as the square (as in, the surface area of the cross-section of the bone-diameter-size), the elephant’s bones must be much thicker for it’s size to support the massive weight, whereas the “spindly” mouse’s bones do not need to be nearly so thick to support the mouse’s more minuscule mass, as it’s volume is considerably smaller in a ratio to its mass.

It was only very recently (in 2012) that it occurred to me that this surface-area-size to volume ratio also was working near the Core-Mantle Boundary (CMB), so that the mass’s density did not quite have to quadruple to allow gravity to increase, [rather than just drop-off to one-quarter of the surface’s value, as would be expected by the “standard” formula], but could tolerate a more “reasonable” density increase, a near tripling the density.  Remember that, in the metric system, the density of water is defined as 1 g/cc, designed as a starting point of measurements.  On land, dirt has an average density about 2.7 g/cc, and at the CMB, stats list the core’s density in a range from 9-12 g/cc (or, alternately, g/cm 3 ) as the density there.  Density might even increase to 16 g/cc further below, but it does not continue to triple with greater depth.

I still stand by the C-R theory’s conclusion that the CMB will be the approximate* final resting place of the ball’s fall, because ONLY there is earth’s gravitational curvature at a maximum.  This also places the (rest-)mass there in it’s slowest real-time-frame, where the real energy of any mass is minimum, and time runs at it’s slowest rate on earth*.  (*If the earth’s density WAS actually uniform, the slowest time-rate SHOULD always be at the surface, and most textbooks state this as-if this was the case.)

I can accept that “the world’s greatest experts” all expect the ball to continue falling towards the earth’s center, at a decreasing level of acceleration, as the amount of mass that sums-up to continue “attracting the ball” falls-off to zero.  That is the conventional, or Newtonian view.  Newton simply summed-up the influence from the total mass remaining, and reduced it proportionally. (I do not fault Newton for not knowing that earth’s density increased substantially with depth.  That knowledge came much later.)

This is where the new view of gravity becomes a necessity to change one’s concept of “how gravity is created, and why it affects a mass”.

Let me suggest a metaphor, to bring the point across.  If I (or someone else) were to twist your arm, behind your back, painfully, there should come a time where you would yield, and give-in, and stop resisting.  If I were to back off this arm-twisting level gradually, your struggle level might not resume gradually , in direct proportion to my easing-off.

NOTE: Your stopping struggling stops at a point of maximum arm-twisting, but never proportionally, at lesser levels.  Now imagine gravity like that, where each mass only falls to MAXIMUM gravity, then gives up, and ceases falling.


Similarly, it is the direct action of curvature on matter, that allows matter to yield-up some of it’s energy, as curvature increases.  In this case, the most yielded energy-amount results from the “residing-in the strongest curvature”.  In this NEW VIEW of gravity, even though a mass might try to re-enter back into the lesser curvature (everything closer-in, towards the center of the earth), the MAXIMUM amount-of energy loss has already occurred, but ONLY at the MAXIMUM curvature.  To “fall down” more, a mass would have to re-acquire the missing energy (which it already just LOST, or gave-away) to be allowed to proceed further downwards.

NOTE: We only get this new view, or this new understanding by recognizing what curvature does, and how it works.  HINT: It is exactly this same principle that also prevents the collapse inward of the Black-Hole C-R , into a singularity.  If you can accept this reasoning once, the conclusion becomes easy and logical. (If you reject it, a mandatory collapse inward is your only other [standard] alternative.)

It is only by using the newest (C-R theory) realization that it is “curvature”, or the (geo)metric (like) changing of the properties of space-time, that creates the “action” which affects the properties of each mass DIRECTLY. [NOTE that the C-R theory now claims that an easy way to visualize the difference is to think that the volume, there at the CMB, is the most compact “packing-in” of matter-energy of a mass.]  This means that matter there , is literally worth less energy (or is “more downhill” gravitationally) than that same mass would be if it were transported to anywhere else on earth*.

(* Matter at the center of the earth would be clocking faster, or running faster, time-wise, than anywhere else, including at earth’s surface.  It will run as fast, there, as the point in space exactly opposite the sun, at earth’s orbital distance.  Since matter here at the center is worth the MOST energy, a ball could not possibly continue to fall there, while also again gaining both kinetic energy, and gaining real-time energy too.)

SIMPLY STATED: the ball cannot re-obtain the energy it just lost,.  It would need an input from an external energy-source to gain time and energy before it could travel anywhere below the CMB, it could not just drop down and gain more energy, without something PAYING the energy-cost for it.

Another KEY concept here is that each mass “takes it’s energy with it, locally, either adding real-time {energy} when it is lifted-up, or losing {surrendering or liberating} energy, as it proceeds to drop into any region of more-curved space.  NOTE: This energy is always LOCALLY accounted-for, and locally stored and maintained.  The “energy” from gravity is never “piped-in”, brought-in, or imported from some far-off regions, and it never disappears off into the void, to be re-incorporated again somewhere else.

Only the C-R theory “knows” “WHO pays [with the energy-cost] to cause gravity?”  Once one understands this KEY relationship, understanding gravity becomes enormously simplified, and very straightforward.

I will grant that no-one has ever “gone there, and tested gravity, there, at the CMB, including the C-R theory.  But, I would also claim that there are good reasons, which can be tested in the privacy of your own home {or anywhere else}, that would suggest the way that gravity does actually work.  I would caution you that, this also goes for “The world’s greatest experts in gravity”, who claim to know what goes on there, at the earth’s center, but also have never gone there and measured the actual results. [at either the CMB, or at earth’s center]

I do not mind if you are skeptical, and want to go there to test things for yourself.  I would encourage home-readers to find other possible ways to test these ideas, and see if they are so, or are totally wrong.  THE IMPORTANT THING is to ACTUALLY GO THERE, and test it, in situ, [on site].  Notice that I do not question all aspects of gravity, but only those that I have good reasons to doubt [by a direct experiment], and where the answer is plainly available, home-testable, and totally unlike what is actually believed to be true, or written in textbooks.

I cannot emphasize enough that this is new thinking, a new way to understand gravity, a new basis for predictions.  While I do not expect you home-readers to immediately “climb-aboard the C-R theory bandwagon”, and be converted-over to the C-R theory-way of thinking, upon your first reading-about it, I do hope that as many as possible will start to realize the “benefits” and the “insights” gained by switching to this new mode of understanding.  Even if you plan to reject it, I would caution you to try to understand it, and learn about a totally new way to understand the causative mechanism.

Let me state, the C-R theory is “informed speculation, and not: a proven fact ”.  It has taken me some 30 years to fully appreciate the insights I have gained, and to achieve the new understanding I have.  This is where the simple experiment of tossing the ball upwards, into lesser curvature, and watching the ball “fall” back into greater curvature, has such a powerful new meaning.  The experiment shows something profound that has otherwise been missed.

Nature has generously given us “her answer” as to: What happens when a ball falls down (towards the center of the earth).  Nature reveals to Everyone: “A mass only continues to fall while the curvature increases, or, only “falls” to maximum curvature.”

This answer has been hidden in plain sight all along, but the Newtonian expectation that the ball will fall all the way to the center of the earth (as a net-sum method of measuring gravity’s strength) has never been right .  The experiment directly shows that this is not true, the ball will not drop to ZERO.  (But the experts regard it as correct, because their measurable formulas ALL predict this.)

Let me make another very important point about the experiment.  If nature truly intended the ball to drop down from lesser curvature, to the greatest curvature, then continue back down to ZERO gravitational curvature, at earth’s center, then why not JUST BYPASS the middleman, and fall straight-up, to enter the lesser curvature directly above us?  But, HEY, we ALL know: it DOES NOT DO THIS.  THAT is a second reason to seriously doubt that the ball WILL drop below the CMB (or the point of the greatest curvature).

It is only after performing the experiment with the ball, that one can now understand: Why would the C-R theory believe that the ball will only “fall” to the CMB*, rather than, to the center of the earth?

[*Technically, this should not be “perfectly and rigorously correct” either, as the center of the earth-moon system’s mass orbits some distance above the earth’s center, in the moon’s direction, and NEVER actually resides at earth’s center.  If we were to pulverize the entire moon, and form it into a circular ring orbiting the earth, then we could say that the Newtonian view would be the ball would fall to earth’s center.]

Without being “too picky”, I now realize that, because of the earth-moon-systems center of mass might well cause the region of maximum curvature to orbit above the CMB, always facing up, towards the moon’s direction, and not reside precisely at the CMB.  If the moon was at a 90° angle to the earth, then the CMB might be the correct position.  I had not accounted for this “curvature-modulation-addition” factor when I did my original thought experiments.  I will now plead guilty to original oversimplification.

It gets a bit awkward, always finding ever-increasing bits of information, that causes this one to revise his views.  The more I ponder over the situation, the more I realize just how far mainstream science will have to change, to catch-up, and to revert-over.

In all probability, very few people will ever believe the C-R theory views, until it can be put to the test, and then, it can either “sink or swim” on it’s own.  My goal with these blogs is to try to show possible reasons to doubt what is “already believed”, and suggest likely areas where new tests can be made.

I do also apologize that my understanding keeps slightly revising, and I keep thinking of more exceptions or revisions, which detract from my earlier “simpler” answers.  I try to be honest, and post the results for all to see, and allow you at home to evaluate their reasonableness.  I especially thank the few who have let me know they do accept these ideas.  I would also thank those newcomers who keep investigating these ideas, and give them a fair hearing.

A Loss of Usefulness When Searching for Answers

I was noticing how “downhill” the main search engines have gone recently, as compared to their older glory days, maybe 10 years ago.  If I try to find sites that mention “Comedy Recycling Theory” or “Completely Recycling Theory” only, the findings are very few, compared to those from several years ago. [Revised note, I tried from another location, and did get better answers.]  Many of the original sites are still there, and there are probably more that have arisen, but the search engines stop far short of finding all or even most of them.


I probably need to try to talk myself into revising my original materials, too, to include more recent updates.  I do not know enough about how search engines work to know how I can best offer my unique ideas, highlighting them so searchers can easily find them.

The C-R theory ideas, which are unique and testable, are quite different, vs the standard ideas, which are re-parroted by almost everyone’s web-sites, but which are agreed-with by most people, too, since they are all that IS offered .

A key difference is, when you ask the standard science web-sites if they KNOW what is happening in the real universe, they will admit their ignorance.  When you ask the C-R theory, I can show you what to look-for, where to look, and independent places that seem to offer items that support the C-R theory ideas.

The dilemma is: what is the very best way that I can offer my new ideas to searchers who have no initial clue yet what my ideas are?  What terms do you home readers use to search for “the unknown best answers”?  I appreciate “word-of-mouth” referrals from others who have enjoyed my suggestions, whether they initially agree with them, or not.

The numbers of incoming visitors has increased over the last 5 years or so.  The number of listed referrals-in, from search engines, seems to go down. {The referrals I do get from them are sincerely appreciated, however.}

Search Engines HATE [my] Superscripts

I do know that I am poorly served by search engines that ignore superscripts and subscripts, but lump letters and numbers together.  I extensively use superscripts to visually guide my readers, but the search engines throw away those real “key” clues.

For instance, if I wanted to search on 10 100 , the search engine sees 10100, and offers “the best of those”.  That is far less useful to me, and potentially, to many of my readers, too.  

Long, long ago, when Google search terms were manually entered, someone there must have really liked my original web-site (the one on GeoCities).  Now that bots do the crawling, they miss the subtle twists that only humans get from puns and jokes, that their simple programs cannot grasp, but that many real humans definitely do enjoy.

What Science Should Ask About

I would like to suggest: Questions that science SHOULD ask.  Obvious answers that science has totally missed.  What science needs to learn, but does not yet suspect.

I continually try to think of new ways to refresh my ideas, to freely share them, and show where the actual observed phenomena seem to support the C-R theory.  Science keeps ignoring all of the evidence for electromagnetic energy being abundant in galaxies, yet goes off on a wild goose chase looking for non-existent dark matter and dark energy.

The electrical nature of Black-Holes C-R should seem obvious, where the Black-Hole C-R eats and stores the positive charges in an electrically neutralized fashion, but actively discards the electrons, is so simple and logical, but “it is not what their books say”, so they ignore those possibilities, too.


When archaeologists find “treasure troves” (a.k.a., trash from 100,000 years ago) of seashells and bones, or cavemen’s garbage, they take that as evidence of what ancient hominids dined on.  But, when astronomers find evidence of leftover electrons, such as the two 25,000 light-year high “lobes”, filled with 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy, glowing at 7 million degrees, both above and below our galaxy’s central bulge, they look to mysterious sources generating dark-antimatter positrons to annihilate with electrons, instead of a forensic recognizing a Black-Holes C-R dietary “leftovers” and discards.

NOTE: Whether it is the central, supermassive Black-Hole C-R , or the debris from the 20,000 lesser Black-Holes C-R scavenging around our galaxy’s central 3 lightyears, science remains BLIND to this “sensible” possibility of leftover electrons.

Being a “sometimes-sloppy-eater” myself (but not intentionally messy, over many light-years in volume), I think the C-R theory’s ideas are quite reasonable, compared to the need for dark matter sources spurting enormous quantities of hot energy, with no known energy-source to pay for it.  This is where this blog comes in handy.  I can list my simple ideas, and present them, to compare them to the more preposterous alternatives needed.

One of the key differences in the C-R theory is that the C-R theory now understands a plan, for how nature uses Black-Holes C-R .  Why are they so abundant? While the ideas are speculative, there is so much evidence available that something electrical happens at, just inside, or very near to the Schwarzschild radius, and there are so many key ideas that only the C-R theory can explain simply and easily, like the origin and source(s) for cosmic rays, and why only the positive charges seem to qualify for a strong energy-boost.  The negative charges do not gain the same level of energization and confinement, but are more slowly released outside, wherever Black-Holes C-R are eating matter.

I know that there are too many fundamental differences for the C-R theory to be accepted, or acceptable to the majority of scientists, but the evidence for Black-Hole C-R diets is everywhere, too.  There are so many “uncaused” electromagnetic anomalies, that just occur, but science does not see a pattern or recognize a trend, or suspect a commonality between ALL-of-them.  This is where the C-R theory shines, and can follow a “connect-the-dots” type of progressive logic, and show a much bigger picture.

Understanding Gravity, the C-R theory’s NEW offer to you.

Mainstream science is so smitten with their notions of how gravity works, and so confident of finding methods for how to reconcile gravity with the other 3 known forces, they have never SERIOUSLY investigated whether gravity is caused by a TOTALLY DIFFERENT {and irreconcilable new} mechanism, which has NOTHING WHATSOEVER in common with the operations of the other 3 known forces.

Technically, by the C-R theory views, gravity is not a force, or a “CAUSE”, as much as it is a RESULT, or an “after-effect”, which only emerges (or becomes visible) AFTER curvature has changed the properties (or, the energy-carrying ability) of matter.  This NEW idea is so fundamentally different, or alien, to common thinking, but so profound in the results of what MUST OCCUR if nature truly acts this way.

I regret that one can only find these new ideas here, at the C-R theory, in spite of my efforts for over 30 years to give it away, for free.  I always read how science is supposed to be objective, and to challenge many of one’s assumptions, on the basis that those things taken for granted are most likely to contain hidden biases and unsuspected surprises lurking within.   If the C-R theory does not fit this description, then what does?

When I do point out the areas where I most suspect WRONG assumptions have been made by others, and why to suspect those errors, science clings tightly to their cherished beliefs, and routinely invokes the use of their formulas (which is normally not bad, most of the time), but, at best, their formulas are a crude approximation of reality, and many times, they smooth-over the very difficult areas where the assumed “smoothness” of the small, chaotic environment may not be nearly so benign as they have led themselves to believe.

NOTE: I am definitely not opposed to using formulas, but their oversimplifications and assumptions have gotten scientists into troubles before.  Use common sense FIRST, then fill in the numbers from formulas.  Overreliance on formula’s predictions has also been used to get answers that do not always live-up to later tests.

What I mind the most is the RESISTANCE to challenge or question the underlying assumptions, especially after we’ve learned so much more in these most recent years.

When I hear the experts say, we do not know why this system works like this, their lack of conviction of their own understanding should be a “red-flag” warning, hoisted high into the breeze, to warn of troubles ahead.  If I did not believe that I might be able to contribute some real insights, I would have otherwise kept these ideas to myself.

What is unique about the C-R theory is that I think I can show you areas where the new insights yield very practical, and very simple to measure differences.  I can offer sensible solutions, where energy comes-from, and where it goes-to.  I can show that there may be a simplified “logic” behind my “madness”, and I am not just making-up a random, something-different, to tout it as my special insight to you.  I do not mind your skepticism, as that is a way to keep everyone honest, and on their toes.


What is intolerable is most of the “expert’s” unwillingness to even consider a new way to understand something like gravity, in areas where THEY KNOW they do not understand, especially if the new idea conflicts with what they have always been taught.  What I am trying to offer is brand new inspiration, and a whole new way to investigate or to consider how things work.  Just give me an honest “listen-to” and let me describe why and how I arrived at these new answers, where the clues were, and why they matter.  Then, I will let you decide for yourself: Is this approach reasonable?

Why A New Idea Is Important

The true measure of any new idea is not how much it upsets the existing experts, but in how much it illuminates a potential new path for you, and helps YOU understand how things work.  If evidence really says NO, then discard the ideas as just plain crazy.  If the ideas are correct (or even partially so), then some new insight can help guide everyone who is looking.

My goal is not to destroy science, and simply to trash what has been carefully taught and treasured, but to replace older, outmoded, worn-out ideas with better pathways, yielding a more precise fit, which may be replaced again, in another generation, with even deeper insights or additional “fresh approaches”.

I would prefer that you not just accept what I have to say as true, but also to consider whether it could be true, why was it missed by so many, and how profound and subtle the difference is, and how it will affect how we understand the whole underlying process of gravity.

Make no mistake, I am now claiming that there are fundamental differences which I think I have found, and that they give me, [and anyone else who learns them], a unique power to understand important NEW connections between “anomalies seen” and phenomena observed.  There is a true logic to my madness, and there is additionally, a new level of insight, a new anticipation of what to find, what to observe, and how it connects to our real world.  I do make very specific and testable predictions which can clearly spell out the differences in expectations in behavior.

I do not expect many to accept these new ideas at their first hearing about them.  That is reasonable.  I accept that there are mostly 7 billion people out there who do not yet accept the C-R theory ideas in any form.  My goal is to change that, one-by-one as necessary, and help anyone who can benefit from these new ideas.

I want you to consider these ideas, and reject them totally, if they are actually wrong.  But I want you to honestly evaluate the ideas, too, and not just reject them because no-one has ever thought that way before.  If these ideas have merit, and resonate with you, you can build-up your personal understanding and see things totally hidden (and still “invisible”) to the baffled experts, who do not connect to recognize the simple, inherent pattern, and see what is going on.

Part of the “curse” for having a good new idea, which does give one an advantage, is trying to sell that idea (even when it is free), and share it with an indifferent world.  It becomes even worse when a whole slew of new insights is joined together, and the entire bundle needs to be included as a package deal, because no individual, one part, on it’s own, yields an advance in understanding.

Part of that new reasoning is how I now understand gravity.  The whole process is so different from what has been taught and what has generally been accepted, that I sometimes am sad [or at least, frustrated] that I discovered (or uncovered) anything.  On the other hand, I consider it a privilege to be the first person, out of 7 billion, to think I have found something truly amazing, already plainly “hidden” in everyday events.

My struggle has been, how do I convey this new understanding to others, without doing so forcibly (and or violently), but to do so voluntarily and gently, and offer the insights and tout the benefits, too, to create a desire, or a longing-for this insight, and a promise of greater things to come.

If the C-R theory ideas are right, almost everything written in earth’s textbooks about gravity is fundamentally and totally wrong.  What is different is that I think I know where to look, what to look for, and how to tell if these new ideas are real, or fictional, depending on the outcome of natural processes.  All one needs to do is to read the existing reports, to refresh ones opinions creatively, from what is already known, but to observe subtle new details that have never been connected-to before.

What I am trying to impart is the WHY these things are seen, what is going on that creates these conditions, and what to try to find, if I am correct.  Then, put that information on line, and let the world evaluate it, to be tested by those who wish it ill, or definitely disagree with the new ideas, as well as the merely curious, fresh arrival, who had no suspicion that anything like the C-R theory ideas was possible.

I do realize that I can state the C-R theory ideas in such a way that they do sound crazy.  The real trick is to state the ideas in a way so as to intrigue home-readers, to create a “want-to-test-it”-type of spirit, and show why nature might have chosen this “newly-understood” way to cause gravity, rather than the currently accepted Newtonian ideas.


At least, I would like to challenge home readers to re-consider some of their long-held beliefs, and ask yourself, have I been fooled by the choices of the beliefs of others {my teachers}?  I try to give you home-readers the ability to test the new curvature hypothesis for yourself, and judge freshly whether curvature can possibly cause a ball to fall back to minimum curvature (as ALMOST everyone believes), or will it only fall to the GREATEST curvature, as only the C-R theory expects?

I know what happened every time I tested that idea, when I tossed the ball, considered exclusively from the “curvature” view, and not the Newtonian view.  The question is: Will YOU believe it?  Even if you will not surrender-to this idea without a fight, or at least, much more discussion, I hope that I have been able to at least make a passable case for the new view.  If nothing else, I would hope that many readers will want to try to test it if it becomes possible.

Thank you for visiting, and please try to consider these new viewpoints first, then reject them if you must.

To be continued…

Jerry Reynard, June 29, 2012, revised again July 5, 2012

(but if you do not want to wait, read either the Comedy-Recycling theory, or the Completely-Recycling theory, or both)