C-R Theory Jester

The Comedy-Recycling Theory

(Of the Entire Known Universe)

by Jerry A. Reynard

Comedy-Recycling Theory Blog

The overall concept of the use (and role) of the Black-HoleC-R in this universe

Welcome to the 41,000th visitor.  Just the other day, the web-site had its 41,000th visitor to the home page, and we’ve been getting as many as 800 visitors in an extraordinary week, and around 600 visitors a week, lately, to all portions of the site.

I will try to let the native humorist in me loose for an upcoming April Fool’s Day version of the blog.  I have held-off from the comedy part of the Comedy-Recycling theory for quite a while, and I would like to let loose the punster at least once a year, if possible.  It is also the Jester’s favorite day of the year (my icon for the humorous part of the C-R theory).

I would like to address one of my favorite topics, and one often misinterpreted by some of the home readers.  I would like to re-visit many of the basics, and try to re-describe them to new visitors.

I would like to point out that, only the C-R theory is bold enough, and self-convinced enough to predict many new, very specific items about the operation of a Black-HoleC-R, the non-generic black hole specifically predicted by the C-R theory.  Having noticed this trend now for over 30 years, and finding as much “known-about” information publicly available as I now know exists, I have a very high level of confidence in the path the C-R theory has taken.  Unfortunately, mainstream science is still plodding-away, towards the twin darknesses, (both dark energy AND dark matter), and looking to those FICTIONAL ideas for their answers.

Briefly, I would advise new home-readers that science simply forgot to try to rule-out electromagnetic energy, consisting of electrical current flows, and intense magnetic fields, before they hopped-aboard the “dark-matter bandwagon”.  {Previous blogs did already cover this point-of-view.  Where I hope to go with this current blog is to flesh-out my ideas about the system inside our universe, and discuss the role that Black-HolesC-R in in this universe, into the mix.

Again, the term Black-HolesC-R refers to ONLY C-R theory obeying [ brand-name, or trademarkedtm-like unique items, different enough to be “protected” or branded or identified as special] black holes.  I also covered this special term in my last blog, but mention it again, before I start-in to this month’s topic.

NEW, and UNIQUE ideas from the C-R theory:

The Black-HoleC-R is so special, in that it sets-up itself for “success” in recovery of matter that has been consumed, rather than failure, as it’s [theoretical, generic] competitors, black holes that collapse fully into a singularity at their center.  Mainstream science maintains that: What enters into a generic black hole, stays inside a generic black hole.

The C-R theory EXPECTS that, if a true singularity actually existed inside a black hole, at the center, the gravity felt outside that black hole should decrease substantially as the mass inside increased" che reason to suspect so is that there would exist a wide “forbidden-zone-like” gap between the central-singularity, and the outside real-world.  As this zone got wider, and that gap increased, whatever gravitons (proposed, or theoretical carriers of the gravitational force) emerged across that gap should diminish, as the coupling-out efficiency of the graviton count would decrease, falling-off with increasing distance-out (measured from the center), and the graviton-receiving mass.

NOTE: The C-R theory states that this decrease in efficiency DOES NOT HAPPEN, but only because a totally different, and quite indirect mechanism is used to produce gravity.  (That idea is covered elsewhere in the C-R theory.)

An added note here: The mechanism the C-R theory has chosen is not subjected to the decrease in graviton-count suspected from a conventional black hole.  Rather, the effect of gravity is produced LOCALLY, on the spot, outside of the Black-Hole, where more conventional means are available.

Mainstream science also ASSUMES that, as 3 of the 4 known forces have all been reconciled into one (partially-complete?) theory, that gravity will also be reconcilable with those forces, and that ALL 4 forces, (of 4) will behave EXACTLY the same way, after coming out from the inside of a generic black hole.

Where the C-R theory differs: the C-R theory proposes that gravity-alone is produced indirectly, and is, technically, an after-effect, rather than a true “force”, on the same, equal footing with electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak (or electro-weak) force.  There is a very simple experiment any home-reader can perform in their own home (or anywhere else) which may actually show this idea in action.  It is not the only reason for the C-R theory’s confidence, but is part of the data to choose.

I will not attempt to prove the concept here, but simply review it, to make the claims, and to suggest some questions the home reader may wish to ponder or discuss further.

The original concept, the one that started the C-R theory idea is this: Why is gravity felt outside of a Black-HoleC-R? [NOTE: This was before the need for the term Black-HoleC-R was known, but I am NOW trying to show, (here), that there is STILL a need the this new concept.]

If you have never been troubled by this question, I would suggest: You should be!!.  If heat and light cannot make it out from a Black-HoleC-R, should not gravity also be “trapped inside”.  If gravitons can only travel at the speed-of-light, why to they seem-to emanate-out undisturbed, or undiminished in strength?

Unless the reader retorts back, but what if gravitons can travel “faster-than-the-speed-of-light”?, there is this provision.  If the speed of gravitons is anything less than infinite, there should come some speed limit where they still would become trapped inside, if they only emerged from an origin, out-o.  a singularity at the center.  If the speed of gravity was infinite, then the theory of relativity must be wrong in at least that one aspect.

I will admit that the C-R theory’s initial ideas focused-on eliminating the singularity, totally.  In that aspect, the C-R theory is still unapologetic: There is NO singularity now, and there never has been one.

Since I have discussed it elsewhere, I will merely mention again that, part of the rejection of the singularity-idea, was the recycling of the same-type of idea where science, just-after 1900, overcame the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, by showing that the electron was forced to limit it’s radiation-away of energy to discreet steps, or quanta.  Otherwise, classical mechanics invoked Maxwell’s equations to claim that the electron, as a moving electrical charge, should have been expected to continually radiate-away it’s energy.  This was because a moving electrical charge was expected to continually radiate away energy.  Every orbiting electron should-have dropped ALL-of it’s energy, and collapsed into the proton, within 1/5 of a second.  This should have limited matter to collapsed matter, or “only neutrons”, everywhere, with every electron merged with the protons in the nucleus and acting like additional neutrons.

Fortunately for our world at large, this Ultraviolet Catastrophe never happened.  Quantum mechanics saved matter in this universe from a “predicted” total collapse into a neutron: very similar to the expected collapse into a singularity that science expects already occurs NOW, in every case, inside, at the center of every [conventional] black hole.

An additional note here: The electron collapsed to the minimum-energy location, or the “s” orbital, the location where it’s energy is minimum.  In any other location, closer-in or further-out, it would be worth MORE energy.

If one understands gravitational curvature, from the C-R theory view, it “influences” matter, to warp, or curve it into a lowered-energy configuration, always to the minimum possible.  It is this action that effectively changes matter “almost*” everywhere in this universe.

(*At the exact center of the universe, there is no net influence from curvature, because any influence is zero-summed, or canceled-out**.  Matter HERE is worth more energy than at any other location, by distance from the center.  {**If there is additional matter, located asymmetrically, outside of this universe, some residual level of additional curvature is still possible at the center of our universe.  NOTE: This exception was not in my original reasoning, and took me 15-20 years to realize the oversimplification of my original thoughts.

I now consider this an oversight error, and is an addition-to, and not an invalidation of the original idea.  I wanted to generalize my concepts, and be more inclusive of a wider range of possibilities than I supposed 30 years-ago, as I realize them.} This topic of “extra-universal” matter, present outside-of our closed universe, may deserve a future blog of it’s own, to elaborate on it.)

Now, I will delve into my intended blog subject, the overall concept of the use (and role) of the Black-HoleC-R in this universe.

Part of the C-R theory ideas is that the Black-HoleC-R accomplishes, for this universe, something like what the scavenger does for the African savannah.  It helps dispose-of expended, worn-out matter, and loose, stray, light, and recycle the leftovers.  The Black-HoleC-R then concentrates them in such a condition that they cannot “radiate-away” any-of their energy, but are forced into a condition, termed the Neutral ZoneC-R.  This is where everything “eaten”, must concentrate-back into an energetic mix, with explosive potential not accounted for by conventional science.  Essentially, only an input, with no possibility of an output, until certain conditions arise to allow the cataclysmic escape to occur.

The simple, elegant part of this is: The Black-HoleC-R does so by exploiting it’s very nature, using the most important attribute (total, saturated gravity) that ONLY it possesses.  In a creatively simple manner, the Black-HoleC-R takes protons, neutrons, and electrons, picks-over them BY MASS, always rejecting {almost?} all electrons, and consumes the remaining protons and neutrons.

The real surprise here is what happens next.  NOTE: This is something science does not suspect, AND DOES NOT ACCEPT.  (but, it happens anyway) Immediately inside the Black-HoleC-R, there is a volume of spacetime where the most extreme conditions matter can ever encounter occur).  What the C-R theory proposes is that, in this Neutral ZoneC-R, every possible interaction, or real-time event, is simply turned-off.

To illustrate, if I tied-up your hands tightly behind your back, then commanded you to applaud wildly, you would be prevented from doing so by your “storage conditions”.  Well, what if matter (and energy too) also face such an extreme of storage-condition inconvenience.  Because the escape velocity here is also “above the speed-of-light”, ALL electromagnetic interactions are turned-off, prevented, invalidated, made impossible.

What is really great about this concept is, it is the MOST SIMPLE answer possible, and the easiest to understand.  We all can understand that if I put you in a condition where you are physically unable to do some action, you are prevented from doing what you would normally try to do, when you were asked.

A Checklist: What is needed is: The most extreme gravitational influence possible, a place of “escape-proof” confinement, and matter and energy involuntarily trapped.  Then, to compliment that, we have matter completely ionized, but held in a suspended state of confinement, yet neutralized by the situation.

Notice that the Black-HoleC-R stores up, in an increasingly-concentrated form, the only known force that CAN overcome, or overwhelm gravity, if and when it is allowed to become active again.  This gives the C-R theory-obeying Black-HolesC-R a competitive advantage in practical-usefulness, as a TOOL, that allows nature to recycle valuable contents in spectacular, systematically-increasing cataclysmic events, like novas, supernovas, hypernovas, Seyfert galaxies, Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN’s), quasars, and gamma ray bursts (GRB’s).

There is a free web site where I have found a chart from a 3,000 year old supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud, that displays the still-high level of multi-positive levels of ionizations.  If this supernova remnant has been expanding and cooling for at least 3,000 years, one would not expect this level of ionization still going strong.  There may be many more like it, but this is one I have found that is readily accessible, for free.

NOTE: The authors of the article might object to my using their article to claim some support for the C-R theory, but the article is publicly available, and is in a form acceptable to mainstream science.  I use it to bring attention to some of the C-R theory’s claims, that information is supportive, or at least available to look-at.  At least 31 ionizations greater than +5 are featured in the chart on the third page of this article.

My point is that there is considerable evidence for a large amount of magnetic fields and electrical currents, in almost every direction we look.  If these items were not there, I would be much more sheepish in pushing the C-R theory’s claims.  However, they ARE there, if one simply recognizes what to look for, and then LOOKS at every new object discovered.

This offers an opportunity to the home reader, to look for additional evidence, not “spoon-fed to you, by me”, but that you can find independently.  If you search, and find nothing else, be suspicious of my examples; but if you find many articles with similar findings, it is probably not due to my fictional writing, but is an indication of something BIG and obvious, that science has completely missed.

What I am trying to do is to suggest a logical pathway, suggest a likely outcome, show you where one might look to find items in the available public literature, and then let you judge if my hypothesis is reasonable.  Do known phenomena that YOU read-about, seem-to support a C-R theory-like hypothesis?

I would also like to assert that ONLY the C-R theory has been publicly BOLD enough to claim a logical scenario for a practical, ecological use for Black-HolesC-R, built-in to the natural order, and to share it with the general public.

I remember reading a short story by Isaac Asimov, called The Last Question, where a robot considered: Is there any way to reverse entropy? I never suspected back then, that it might occur to me to be the first to suggest a simple and practical way to do so, using basic, but unsuspected new principles, to exploit the given properties of our special Black-HolesC-R(and not just any generic black holes).

While I do not expect anyone to fully accept the idea for this new system-package, at first reading, I at least want to get the idea discussed, offered as a reasonable-sounding possibility, and to show skeptics what to expect, where to look, what phenomena to notice, and WHY it makes sense, from nature’s point-of-view.  I also maintain that this outcome did not happen by some randomly-evolved accident, but was part of an ingenious master plan, pre-designed and set-up well ahead-of-time, by an intelligent Creator.  While I cannot prove that academically, I now consider this possibility just impressive-enough to freely share it with anyone who will listen.

I offer to home readers the opportunity to investigate some of this for themselves, and see if you can find more evidence for, or ANY evidence against this notion.  If that idea is wrong, I certainly want to know that too, so I can look elsewhere.  If I had not found seemingly at least 100 randomly detected items over the last 30 years, each one contributing additional support, and reinforcing the general idea, I probably would have posted this idea anonymously, if at all.

I am not trying so much to take credit for the idea, as it’s inventor, but merely to present it as a reasonable hypothesis.  I believe I have been allowed to discover (or uncover) the idea, as much because I would present it publicly, rather than the circumstance where I labored diligently for a full-lifetime of careful study, and then came to this conclusion.

I had been considering just such a question, about the beginning of this universe and the potential role of (generic) black holes beforehand, in late 1978.  It may have been more by luck, happenstance, or serendipity, or even due to a simple but sincere request for understanding (again, in late 1978), rather than my genius, my abilities, or my contributions, that sprung-open the trap door to understanding, when these ideas spilled-out into a plausible package, and my “AHA-light” turned-on.  A moment came when I simply understood the general process, involving Black-HolesC-R, as a complete package, and the basic parts just fit-into place.

My ideas have been smoothed-out and filled-in, continually revised, and polished-up over the last 30-some years, as I witnessed the findings from space.  I believe I understand the process even better now, and I have years of fresh, new phenomena to support my suspicions.  If the large quantity of items that seem-to support the C-R theory hypothesis was not there, I never would have published these ideas to the web, with my real name attached.  I might have used a pen name.

I consider myself very fortunate to have the C-R theory’s guidance, showing me ever increasing support for “these crazy thoughts”.  My goal with these blogs is now to see if I can impart to others a similar sense of purpose, reveal a reasonableness to what is seen, and to supply a practical guide to how to think about the universe at hand, and recognize patterns of operation.

If you do not start to sense an overall pattern, a consistency of outcome, a repetitive nature to the reports-of high currents, magnetic fields, excess electrons, positive ionization-driven energy-release events, polarized light patterns, warm gas flows, and plasma-driven phenomena, just read new articles in the weekly magazines and the monthly periodicals, the PBS and Discovery (or Science) Channel shows, and you should sense something.  If mainstream science understood what was going on, could connect the links, or anticipated events like these, they are strangely silent about it.

If my descriptions of common patterns recurring in all new phenomena do not excite you, and suggest to you to seriously consider the C-R theory’s findings, I hope you will keep these things I mention in mind, and remember WHERE you read-about them.  If you can find a better (or simpler, or more-logical) explanation for them, please let me know, too.

If the C-R theory ideas do not seem too radical and outlandish to you initially, they should.  If I can just get you to look for these type-of items, to apply a C-R theory based logic to what is seen, and get you to appreciate the usefulness, I will understand if you are not convinced, and reject these ideas.  I need individuals world-wide to think along these NEW lines of reasoning, especially in the younger generation, who have not yet made-up their mind against the C-R theory pathways, before they consider other competing ideas.

If readers have questions, comments, or concerns, please use the contact the author form at the top of the home-page to reach me.

I will try to prepare more blogs, re-addressing many-of the most basic C-R theory ideas, and attempting once again to show readers the overall simplicity of these ideas.  I would also invoke Occams’ razor, or the principle that the simplest overall mechanism, with the fewest parts, is the most likely one to be correct.  If you can find a simpler, more complete idea-package anywhere else, go with it.  If not, please try to use the C-R theory, as your theory of choice, to understand this universe.

If you still disagree with me, that is your right.  I will listen to ANY reasonable ideas, and try to give them a fair hearing.  If my arguments do not convince you now, I trust that they will continue to resonate with you favorably, over time.  If it takes 5 or 10 years to win you over, or even longer, that is still progress.  If your arguments against it are sound-enough, and you can convince me that I am wrong, I will start looking elsewhere, too.

I thank you all for dropping-by and visiting.  If I can help to guide or revise your thinking, or suggest new items that never occurred to you before, that is part of my goal.  If you can switch-over your thinking to a more “pro-C-R-theory viewpoint”, I will accept that as progress.  If these ideas are wrong, the available data should give many clues to us all, that the C-R pathways are not occurring.

That I know-of, no other theory claims anything like a C-R theory pathway, although some sites do use similar items for some of their agenda.  I am still open to possible better explanations of some items by someone else’s reasonings.  If I find better explanations, which can convince me of their usefulness or correctness, I will try to share those, too.

Even WRONG ideas can be useful, and may contain new logic or ideas that can later be used for your benefit.  I have often improved my understanding of new items by considering what was known about similar items from bygone days.

Please feel free to recommend this site to others, if you find it useful to you.  If you are not convinced, but still enjoy some of my arguments, I appreciate your consideration.  If you think I am completely wrong, but wish to use the C-R theory to illustrate that line of reasoning to others, I will accept that too.

When I posed my original questions about black holes, I would not have accepted any of these ideas at the start.  I state that so that I can be empathetic with those who cannot, for now, accept this new reasoning.  I know where you are coming-from (at least, in part).  It took me many years to come-around to a new way of thinking about Black-HolesC-R, and refine these ideas.

It is still possible that there are lines of reasoning that I have not considered, or objections that I cannot overcome, or that something new will prove some-of these ideas dead wrong.  That I am aware-of, there are none I have deliberately hidden, swept-under-the-rug, or covered-up.  It is always possible that any home-reader will find a truly fatal flaw that I cannot brush-off.  If one exists, I may even find it myself, when I think of new ways to explain my ideas to you.

If you can take away anything new and positive (for you) from this theory, that is also part of my goal.  My theories are my “hobbies”, and I do everything I do for them because it is still “fun” for me, and not drudgery.  [This includes writing these new blogs, and offering them to you.] I have gotten enormous satisfaction from the C-R theory ideas, in helping me to personally understand what I think I see.  If they assist you too, or provide some satisfaction level to you, too, that is also intended.

If I cannot change your mind, and you are totally opposed to these ideas, and you are sincere in your beliefs, I can respect that, too.  I knew before posting these ideas that they were too radical, too different, and there were too many needed changes to be an “easy-sell”.  Even if this theory is 100% correct in all of it’s ideas, it could take 50-500 more years before science fully catches-up or accepts them.  I am willing to pay that price, and be thought-of as a fool by some, if that is what it takes to present these views.

Although I can suggest where to test these ideas, and where to look, we (humanity) cannot just go “there” and test these ideas “there”.  Part of putting these ideas on-line is the possibility that some creative reader will instantly grasp some concept that can immediately be tested, in a totally new way.  Possibly, future space missions can design experiments to more directly test some of the C-R theory’s new ideas.

As with all of science, these ideas ARE right, or, they ARE wrong (or combinations of each).  If they fail the test of time, that is often the fate of most new theories.  If I can shed light on issues that should be considered more-widely, then this will have been useful.

There is too much NEW information here, on this web-site, to digest in one sitting.  Expect to need to re-visit this site multiple times to take advantage of the new concepts unique to the C-R theory.  By the book, these ideas are unreasonable.  But, the old books were often wrong.  I am not offended if you choose to remain faithful to your textbooks, and accept them over the C-R theory.  If you keep in mind what you have read here, I am confident that I have already won, in the long run.

If I were trying to sell you this information for a high price, I would be very suspicious.  As this is my hobby, I am overjoyed to share these ideas freely, without charge.  Critics might say, it is only worth what you pay for it.  I give these ideas freely to anyone who will consider them.  If they provide you with anywhere near the joy and fulfillment they have given me, then, please, pass them on to others too.

If you do not find these ideas and discussions useful, I hope you will find what you are looking-for elsewhere.  I would also agree, science is not supposed to work this way, where you get the ideas, and then discover that nature agrees, but the C-R theory is too nice, and seems to fit too well, to simply throw it all back into the sea, and try again.

Jerry A.  Reynard February 29, 2012, (and some small additional revisions August 21, 2012)