C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

The C-R Theory Responds

Within the last week, I have responded to a magazine article and responded to an interesting question from a reader.  That suggests a title for this blog: C-R Theory responses.

I responded to an article in the March, 2010 issue of Astronomy by David J.  Eicher, about the 5 big questions in astronomy.  The second question in that article, What is Dark Matter? (that part, starting on page 46) My response-in probably exceeded the length of his comments on the likely nature of dark matter.  In brief, science has detected that the velocities of stars rotating around the centers of most galaxies do not fall-off with outlying distance, as measured from the center, [as they should if the inverse-square force of gravity is the sole explanation for the velocity of stars in the galaxy’s arms].

Mainstream science has speculated that there is a mysterious “new” substance called dark matter, which provides the missing mass to explain the much higher than expected velocities.

Here below is the (slightly modified) full response to that article.  [Even if the response does get published in an upcoming issue, it is likely to be greatly shortened or truncated, to fit-in the letter section.] Below is the C-R theory’s response:

Dear Sirs,

In response to your article in the March 2010 issue of Astronomy, by David J.  Eicher, starting on page 45 about Astronomy’s 5 Big (unanswered) Questions, specifically the section starting on page 46, about dark matter, I would like to make the following suggestion: perhaps it would be better for “science” to spend more time considering the other 50% of the known (inverse-square) forces-at-large, (electromagnetism), before inventing something imaginary, like dark matter, to explain away the observations.

While I would concede that standard gravity is probably not the cause of the near constant velocity of stars measured in the outer arms of galaxies as one goes outward from the center of the galaxy, “Science” has been way too quick to dismiss the potential contributions from magnetism and electrical activity.  One might note the (near universally) large amount of polarized light observed in most (if not all) galaxies.  Just recently, experiments like PAMELA and ATIC (Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter) have observed high-energy free electrons coming from the vicinity of the center of our own galaxy.  This HINTS that there are electromagnetic-type processes going-on there that free-up enormous quantities of electrical charges.  These charges CAN contribute magnetic fields that may help-to transfer some momentum and angular torque in excess of those derived from standard gravity.

Just to make a point, one could demonstrate such a simple process with either a standard roll (from the green-plaid box) of Scotch tape, just by pulling a small, 2-4" piece of tape off of the roll, (and see it being electrostatically attracted back to the roll [upwards]), or, try rubbing a balloon on a wool sweater (on a dry winter’s day), and then sticking it to a wall.  Either way, one can easily generate enough static charge to overcome the entire gravitational pull from ALL of earth’s mass [all 5.97 x 1024 Kg.  of it], although this “localized” static-effect rapidly fades-off with distance.

I would propose that it would only take little more than one stray electrical charge in every 1040 th atoms to augment or to re-enforce the force of gravity.  One can easily determine that there are huge magnetic-based storms, loops, whorls and effects going-on, on our sun’s surface, and it wouldn’t therefore be all that unreasonable to suspect that collective-stray magnetic fields contributed-by other stars might effectively combine, to allow large groups of stars to “hold-hands”, magnetically-speaking, and bunch, pinch, scrunch, and twist, or line-up without being overcome by gravity’s much wimpier, (although still huge, by our human standards), forces.

Before spending Billions of Dollars looking for Dark Matter, perhaps “Science” should investigate KNOWN phenomenon happening inside galaxies for evidence of magnetic and electrical fields, such as that indicated by POLARIZED light, (plus polarized radio waves, microwaves, X-rays too).  These are much more likely, by my estimation, to make, or add a significant contribution to the velocity of stars motions observed, than a hypothetical dark matter, which does not show up in any earthbound measurement done so far.  You owe at least some consideration from standard-thinking to your readers before invoking the “near-magic” influences of dark matter.

Interested readers can check out these simple ideas and much more, for free, at The Comedy-Recycling Theory (of the entire known universe) at www.cr-theory.org

Thank you,

Jerry Reynard March 1, 2010 (Some colors added for extra effect)

A C-R theory reader wrote in and (paraphrased-here) asked: If matter in this universe is indeed less curved at the Great Attractor, and more curved at the outer edges, (heading towards the Neutral ZoneC-R), why wouldn’t the matter here, (near earth), just rush out, into greater curvature, at increasing velocity? Would that also explain the observed increasing red shift?

I figure that many readers out there may have had the similar thoughts, but not yet written-in.  To see my response:

Dear sir,

Thank you for writing in to the C-R theory.  I do appreciate your asking the question.  I haven’t given it as much thought directly, as to why curvature does not simply collapse the universe outward.  I feel reasonably confident that the universe does not do so from a simple appearance.  (We do not seem to live inside a hollowed-out shell).  The red shift is caused by a “time-constraint”, or a greater bending at the outer regions.

One of the reasons that I do not believe the red shift is accelerating, and matter is not just rushing outwards, is the appearance of “The Great Attractor”.  Part of the insight from the C-R theory is understanding the situation, vs.  trying to understand the equation first.  As I was forming my concept, for why the Black-HoleC-R never collapses into a singularity, I “recycled” my understanding from an old answer, the situation involving the Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

If we did not see something like “The Great Attractor”, I would not have nearly the same level of confidence that our universe does not expand, but also does not shrink.  I also suppose that I assumed that the universe is relatively stable, and is not expanding in size.  The way I imagined this universe, the properties of the Active ZoneC-R, or the inside region of every Black-HoleC-R, will be totally stable over time, with the internal density and size constant over time.  I do envision some level of dynamic interaction occurring, especially with all of the electromagnetic activity going on everywhere.

[Let me add an aside here.  If we imagine our solar system, where the various planets are each orbiting the sun in their own “year”, each planet has a perihelion and aphelion every year, in a cyclic-way.  Their orbital dynamics allow them to briefly change their position, but restore the overall stability.  Try to use those ongoing orbital dynamics as a parallel, a rough guide, to understand a stable system.]

I don’t know that I would have a way of proving it, but I think that the universe “kind-of takes-on a level of layers of stability”, where matter somewhat “settles-in” to it’s own level, [or zonal-range], of energy.  While matter here cannot “fall” inwards towards the Great Attractor, from the “pull” of matter there, as the conventional Newtonian ideas would believe, so also would there be no outward “pull” either.  Let me try to explain, below.

If we imagined all the matter “outside-of” our location, as measured outward from the center of the universe, in an increasingly curved volume, or set of shells, something like the Russian Matryoshka, (or nesting) dolls, with an increasingly smaller set inside, and an increasingly larger version outside.  If we could “sum-up” the net gravitational curvature from all matter, evenly distributed, [in shells] outward, in all directions, the net “attraction” inside, (even in a purely Newtonian sense), would be zero.

I have read elsewhere that if we could visit the inside of any “hollow shell” of matter, regardless of it’s size or thickness, the net-sum of attraction, measured from anywhere inside that shell, would be zero.  Of course, our universe is not simply a shell, but consists of real-world matter.

I take it as a given that from anywhere further outside of earth’s position, (as measured from the center of the universe), there would be a kind-of uniform distribution of matter.  The net-sum of the total curvature, (further outward), as measured from any direction (inside), would still be zero in every direction.

The matter further inside of us, nearer to “The Great Attractor”, is not exerting a “pull” on us either.  Our matter, at earth’s location, is worth less energy, (or, is more-bent, curved, warped), than matter further inside.  Since we do not normally “have” more energy, we simply cannot go there.  HINT: If we deliberately set-out to acquire energy from some source, lets say, a rocket-engine, and pointed it so as to accelerate us inward, giving us that needed extra energy, we are not forbidden from going there, but there is an energy-price that must be “paid-up” in full, to travel there, nearer-to the “Great Attractor”.

{New insight: Consider the analogy of focusing sunlight with a magnifying glass.  As we concentrate more-of the sun’s energy into a smaller point, it gets hotter, or more energetic.  Now, consider matter’s state as something-like that, where the “least-warped volume of spacetime” is more “concentrated, [per unit of volume]”, and less “spread-out”, or de-focused and de-centralized, [as it would be when it is more warped].  That may make it easier to understand how the slowdown of time occurs, somewhat like the increased-pathlength that both light and energy must take whenever they reside in “more-warped” space.}

[A second, new aside here.  I do not know whether the time-slowdown occurs continuously and smoothly, or if it takes place by adding-in very small, discrete digital or fractal increments.  On the larger scales that we exist-in, we may never be able to detect the smallest changes with any practical level of measurement, as “on an atom by atom” measurement.]

In short, I see our universe as having an incredible stability, size-wise.  It is not in imminent danger of collapsing inward, (even if it is indeed, somewhat static, motion-wise).  In a conventional, Newtonian-type understanding, such a static universe would always start-to collapse inward, like an unstable house-of-cards.

In the thinking of Relativity, using Einstein’s equations to understand our universe, if it was “static”, it would collapse UNLESS there was something repulsive, (like Dark Energy), to counteract the inward force of gravity.  If you only use the equations to understand our universe, (like conventional science DOES), this universe is not stable, but must either be expanding or collapsing.

In noticing a “closed-universe”, the C-R theory claims that there necessarily must be a “preferred reference frame” superimposed over matter inside.  This is not arbitrary or whimsical, but is due to the fact that the universe has a center, and proceeds outward, in all directions from there, until reaching full curvature.

To answer your second part of the question, about radiation leaking-out of the universe into the Neutral ZoneC-R, the way I understand curvature, this will not happen.  The radiation-photons will simply be deflected, (bent or curved aside), to a new direction.  The closer to the Schwarzschild radius, the stronger the deflection becomes.  This is what completely “confines” matter and energy inside, in a very practical manner.

There is perfect stability of a static-type C-R theory (closed) universe, {although matter inside is “free” to dynamically interact}.  The C-R theory uses curvature to explain and show why there is “a preferred reference frame” superimposed over it, if it is “closed”.

If you would, consider a larger-sized jawbreaker, with it’s many internal “shell-like” candy layers, (of different colors), to represent our “full” universe, then, cut it in half or quarter the sections to envision or to represent the various internal, equal-energy-levels of matter.  At the very center, there is no curvature, and from the smallest shell and continuing out, until, at last, everywhere on the outermost shell, outside, represents “full curvature”.

If we could “hollow-out” that jawbreaker’s inside, at any stage, anywhere inside any of the colored-shell-layers represents an equal-energy volume.  {Before hollowing}, every shell closer-in to the center would be increasingly faster, or more blue shifted to us, and every shell further outside would be increasingly red shifted to us, and slowed-down.

If I considered the jawbreaker as existing for all time, (and not just recently manufactured at a candy factory), I would not worry about it’s size or state 100 years ago, or today, or 100 years from now.  It would always be “the same size”.  I would not worry about: will it expand or collapse; but understand it as very stable, (if there was not a group of hungry kids waiting to devour it during my demo).

I hope that above example helps explain how I “see” the universe, and why I see it as perfectly stable, over time.  Since it is not expanding or contracting, it will be stable.  NOTE: A C-R theory-type “closed” universe, with a “preferred-reference frame” superimposed over it, WILL NOT be isotropic, or the same in all directions or at all locations.  (But it DOES have a logical explanation for why our universe appears as it does.)

{Another NOTE: Matter inside this C-R type universe is still free to dynamically interact, and there will be energy-flows, currents, magnetic fields, bands of concentrated mass, voids, collisions, and the like, occurring all the time.}

If we were at the exact center of this type of a universe, we would only see red shifts, increasing uniformly in every direction, with increasing distance.  It would look identical, (at a single point in time), to a universe uniformly expanding in all directions.  If one could look at both-type of universes, over a billion year time span; the before and after pictures would tell which of the two scenarios was actually the case.

NOTE: The above view is ALMOST what we see, but, we ALSO see one region as “The Great Attractor.”

NOTE: As seen from one specific spot inside the C-R theory type universe, we would match very closely, if not exactly, ALL of the features that we really see in our universe.  To be honest, the view of the universe would be consistent over time in a C-R theory type universe, but the view of the universe would change or vary considerably over a billion year-time span, for an expanding universe.

I wish I could assure readers that if they would check back again in a billion years, the C-R theory “view” would be proved right.  I do not expect any of the current “crop” of readers to be able to take me up on that challenge.

Again, thank you for your question.  It is very reasonable.  I expect that the same questions may arise from many other readers, (but that they don’t write-in.).  I also thank you for reading the C-R theory.  I do hope it will prove useful to you, and that, over time, you will choose the C-R theory as your “Theory-of-choice”, to understand how our universe works.  Feel free to put it to the test, and check out new phenomenon as they are announced, and see if the C-R theory seems like a better “real-world-fit” to the observations.

I do hope that the explanations here sound reasonable and plausible, and that I don’t have to bend-the-facts too much, or “convolute them” to fit the C-R theory views, but that they line-up naturally, on their own, and seem to fit.

I have tried to explain the C-R theory more from a situational understanding, of how I understand the situation, rather than from “an equation-based understanding”, where I read most of the current science books, look at the equations, and then try to figure-out what to anticipate next.  I am figuring that thousands of other scientists have already looked-at the existing equations for their wisdom, and in many earlier cases, that method has provided useful insights.

I believe I have achieved a different-type of insight and understanding, using a much different approach, but I have also added-in a return to some old-fashioned common-sense type reasoning.

The C-R theory approach is either right, or it is wrong.  Time will tell which of the many different possible theories is the most correct.

Feel free to write in again if you have further questions.  I do anticipate that not all incoming readers will either agree-with my logic, or accept it at first reading.  I know that these ideas have been pre-dismissed, “before consideration”, so there never has been a real, honest evaluation or discussion of the merits, (and/or weaknesses), of these ideas.  I have looked-for, but not found, previous authors considering these ideas.

I do believe I have achieved simple and new insights, and I am trying to share those ideas freely with anyone else who will evaluate them.  I would gladly accept readers taking several years to re-consider these ideas, before they, too, start accepting and advocating them.

If I thought the C-R theory ideas were wrong, I probably would not have posted them on the internet, and attached my name to them.  As a “hobbyist/outsider” looking-in, I believe I have been able to understand some things in our universe in a new way, from “clues” hiding everywhere, in plain sight.

I have tried to guide others and show them: Where to look, What to look-for, What to check, and What to notice.  If there is nothing there, then no-one else will notice.  What I am trying to do is get others to recognize the same patterns, the same consistencies, the same type-of phenomena, and honestly evaluate them from a C-R theory perspective.

If the C-R theory is true, (or at least partly-so), I am hoping other readers, too, will discover things that have not yet occurred to me, and extend the usefulness.  If they can discover something new or even more profound, or more inclusive, I welcome the company.  (I am NOT exclusively reserving the new insights to myself.)

If the ideas are wrong, I would hope that the readers can show me the areas of weakness or flaws in my logic.  If it is wrong, I certainly want to KNOW.  It is conceivable that with exposure to some 7 billion potential critics and skeptics out there, I may need to revise, correct, or abandon some parts of the theory.

I may post some or all of this letter in the blog section, so that I can share this explanation with other readers.

An abbreviated answer might be that the C-R theory says that the red shift in this universe is due to a time-rate change, rather than from the expansion, (or even accelerating expansion), of the universe.

Another new thought is: it is much easier to change how we, {humanity}, understand the universe, than to provide an abundant new source of “free” energy, to expand and accelerate ALL of the mass inside our entire universe.  Is the simplest answer: To “move the ENTIRE universe” or, To revise our “human” thinking?

Jerry Reynard

That is why I have characterized this most recent blog as a response.  This now is the 30 th year of my new understanding for the C-R theory.  I would hope that I can impart some sense of what I am seeing, and share it with as many people as possible.  The idea that curvature actually causes gravity, (rather than the other way around), is quite new.  Appreciating HOW curvature influences matter, and physically changes or “modulates” it’s energy-worth, (or content), is also unique to the C-R theory.

Realizing that, in a closed universe, there must therefore be a preferred-reference frame, means that space cannot still be “isotropic”, or the same in all directions.  The C-R theory claims that this simple realization provides the simplest possible explanation for what our universe actually looks like.

I would ask the home-reader to consider, which of the following two choices is MORE likely:

A: That our entire universe, and ALL of it contents [and mass inside], are accelerating-apart at an increasing velocity, without any visible source to provide this energy.  (or)

B: Change the perception of the people, [especially scientists], to realize that there are likely flaws in their expectations, and the true situation is much simpler.

In the simplest solution, what we see elsewhere, (the red shifted part), is NOT like here on earth, but is instead slowed-down by GRAVITY.  This means that what is measured SHOULD NOT BE CORRECTED with the ASSUMPTION that it has been slowed-down by a Doppler-shift, caused by accelerating-away from us.  Instead, the observations SHOULD-BE accepted as REALITY, as seen, or the way matter really is!!!!!

If one does that, one realizes that our universe is closed-off, contained, relatively static, still dynamically interactive, and is always similar.  It’s density is constant, it’s mass is fixed, and it is always safely tucked-inside an Active ZoneC-R.  This Active ZoneC-R is the inside portion of every Black-HoleC-R, that keeps the mass from collapsing into a singularity.

That Active ZoneC-R is always exactly critical, always has been, and always will be.  (That Active ZoneC-R universe is larger than all the smaller Black-HolesC-R we can suspect are out there in our universe, but we cannot actually see, since they are black.)

HINT: There is nothing that prevents our entire universe from being a “lesser-sized Black-HoleC-R “, located somewhere inside yet an even larger mega-universe.  There will likely never be any way to check this possibility out, until humanity achieves faster than light speed travel, and can wait the return of any crew brave (or foolish) enough to be the first to try it out.

I would like to establish the C-R theory as a reasonable alternative to the Big Bang, and as a resource guide to those dissatisfied with answers from conventional theories.  I will attempt to refine my methods of presentation, to provide simple graphics or videos to illustrate my main points.

I am hoping to consolidate the phenomenon lists from a few blogs ago, and provide a suggested reference-guide to already-known anomalies to use as a basis to understand some of the things missed by conventional theories.  I will attempt to provide a simple framework suggesting how the C-R theory believes this universe operates, what to look-for, and where to look.

I will attempt to explain WHY the C-R theory viewpoint matches the real-world observations better, and show readers things not anticipated by standard theories.  I will try to explain what is different about the C-R theory ideas, and why they are useful.


I have read that the LHC is back on-line now, and that they have started-up circulating protons in both directions, and at low energies, to start a break-in period, and then start to increase the energies until new records can be set.

The C-R theory is one of the few sites I know of that expects almost no new or useful information to come out of the LHC, specifically because THE ENTIRE SCENARIO it is based upon, [the Big Bang], is wrong.  This means that, while they might discover a few new subatomic particles, (or even a whole bunch of them), the existence of those particles will tell them nothing new or profound or useful about this universe.

{Although I do not HOPE I’m wrong, if they do come-up with profound new insights, I would celebrate with them.  The C-R theory leads me to suspect that this will not be the case, however, and I wanted to predict it ahead of time, rather than wait until after-the-fact.}

A HYPOTHETICAL “Note from God”

The thought had occurred to me to simulate a “Note from God”, to: The LHC staff, stating that: If earth’s scientists really wanted impressive new insights into His universe, THEY could start-off BETTER by treating His PARTICLES of matter with more CARE and RESPECT, rather than by trying to first DESTROY many of them.

STRONG HINT: Try ASKING the Creator nicely for new wisdom and ANSWERS first, and see if that succeeds better in gaining new insights.  (Hmmm, I wonder who might have already tried that approach for new understandings?)

Jerry Reynard


Having just seen the new movie Alice in Wonderland , they twice asked the question: Why is a raven like a writing desk? (The question was never answered in the film.) Since it takes a certain comedy illogic to answer, I had the answer before I got into my car to go home.

A: A raven has an ink-black quill (feather) and a writing desk (in Victorian times) has a black ink well.

Q: Is that answer right? A: No, but it’s the only answer left.

Sorry for the illogic, but that’s the Comedy-Recycling theory answer to the question.

I will add an alternate answer I have encountered elsewhere.  Because Poe wrote on both of them.  I find that less satisfying, but I decided to add it in in this revision.

Small fixes, extra commas, and a few more words added September 5th, 2012