First, I would like to welcome our 43,000^th visitor, and everyone else, too.  This blog may be posted after your arrival.  [That count of visitors only covers the home page, and not the many other pages home-readers can visit.]

      I do not know if the international crowd enjoyed it as much, but that blog was the most fun one for me in a very long time.  My webmaster thinks I should add some humor to all the blogs, rather than letting it build-up for a few years, then spring it out all at once.  I keep hoping that mainstream science will start to take seriously the experiment, where home-readers can test for themselves what happens when an object tossed into “lesser” curvature transitions from a greater-curvature state, visits the lower curvature region, but must cut the visit short, and return back to the greatest curvature. I suspect that thousands of individuals will want to kick themselves for missing something “so obvious” yet so profound, if the C-R theory ideas are ever accepted.  The sad part is that knowledge of: “How nature works” was “hidden in plain sight” all along.

      To return back to standard science again, after my April-Fool’s Day blog, I would like to continue addressing concerns from new articles that I have read, and items I have learned about, that should be of interest to all home readers..

      In a list of the top 600 items of interest from NASA, from the noteworthy things on their list from the year 2010, one of the items admitted that, even with their best supercomputer simulations of a supernova explosion for a very massive star, the equations for the fusion process just fizzled-out, and did not let that star explode.  They could approximate what is seen in a less massive star, but, in the obese ones, gravity won-out, and kept the star from exploding.

      While this failure to explode is bad news for standard science, I consider it a win for the C-R theory.  In the C-R theory’s account, if a Black-Hole ^C-R is involved in the supernova process [and, in the C-R theory, it is], then as the more massive star consumes more proton-neutron rich diet (and stores those contents in a Neutral Zone ^C-R, in an electrically neutral manner), by design, that star becomes more unstable as it eats more.  

      All that is needed is some eventual external gravitational disturbance to come-along and shift the contents of the Neutral Zone ^C-R just-enough that any part of those contents will become unstable if the envelope (or region) they are stored-in is sufficiently disturbed.  

      Remember that, in the C-R theory pathway, the neutralized protons, and proton-neutron combinations are immediately inside the Black-Hole ^C-R, but they are also conveniently available for some space-warping disturbance to eventually permit.

      Since most known supernova explosions happen to occur in binary pairs, whether both participants are “stars”, or one is a star, and one is a Black-Hole ^C-R, that should suffice.

      NOTE: In the C-R theory process, even most “standard or conventional stars” might have a Black-Hole ^C-R at their center.  This includes our star, the sun.  By powering any star with a Black-Hole ^C-R, rather than “standard” fusion that regular science believes-in, the energy efficiency released from hydrogen would increase to up to 50% of it’s rest-mass energy, as compared to the 0.7% efficiency released fusing hydrogen atoms into helium. {For a star somewhat similar to our sun, with a normal listing, from the H-R diagram pathway, fusion is the only power source, as is written-about in the textbooks}

There IS no OOPS in failure to confine charges, when that “failure” is pre-planned!!!

      A supernova working by the C-R theory pathway, powered by, essentially, continually storing-up and packing-in the Black-Hole’s ^C-R ionized dinners of protons and neutrons, will have the explosive power needed to overcome gravity, and is not subject to gravity winning out over the outward force of fusion only when a star is relatively slim and less massive.

      When looking at “the standard equations”, conventional theory totally ignores the contribution to instability that dining-exclusively on ionized nuclei has for setting-up every Black-Hole ^C-R to a catastrophic-failure at some time during it’s extended lifetime. Because mainstream science simply looks at the C-R scenario, where the Black-Hole ^C-R eats the proton-neutron combinations, and sends the electrons whizzing-away in high-speed jets, and says, “That scenario does not happen, so we can safely ignore that possibility.” [Actually, they discard that possibility before ever evaluating it for feasibility, because they simply cannot accept that nature works that way.]

      The explosive potential of a supernova provided by the C-R theory obeying Black-Holes ^C-R, eventually becomes the second greatest “known” motive-force available to science; after a pure matter-antimatter encounter, but science discards that idea because they are trained NOT to think along those lines.  Since science has essentially “discarded” the next-best explanation, after antimatter annihilation, they are “stuck-with” the lesser ideas, like fusion, which is still very powerful, in it’s own right.

      Fortunately, the Black-Holes ^C-R themselves have not read the earth’s physics books, to “know” they’re not supposed to do that.  Science may yet learn that this is what really goes on in these cases, if and when they learn to pay attention to the high level of continuing excess multi-positive-ionizations detected in supernova remnants, especially for those in the many-thousands of years-old categories.

      I would even accept it if they still said this C-R method cannot work, but they still used it to approximate the “right answers” “for calculation purposes only”, and used it to understand and to calculate the aftermath of the phenomena, all while maintaining “but science does not really work like this”, to get the right answers, or to get an answer somewhere in the proper “magnitude-ballpark”.

The OBJECTIONS to the C-R theory pathway

      There are objections that mainstream science has to the C-R theory type operation, and I would like to comment-upon them.  The objections are not insignificant, but they do represent science rejecting a “simple”, new way to understand how Black-Holes ^C-R operate.

      Normally, science is very conservative, and scientists are loath to discard the currently accepted answers for a more speculative (or newer) answer.  When the evidence grows overwhelming that something is amiss, and that science does not understand some process enough to account for all of the observations, that is when either a revised theory, which explains the differences, or a whole new theory, which replaces the incorrect version, takes over.

      There is no group of equations I am currently aware-of that provides the C-R theory with insight into these matters.  There is no laboratory where one can test Black-Holes ^C-R, or even the generic black holes. The ideas themselves are, however, very simple and basic, and the explanation is “reasonable”, if one keeps the end-objectives in mind.

      The first new idea is that whenever a Black-Hole ^C-R eats some mass, that mass does not enter into the Black-Hole ^C-R unaffected or unfazed, as some classical theories maintain.  Rather, the matter enters going through the most stressful time, and the most extreme conditions it will ever face*. [*The C-R theory DOES NOT believe in the Big Bang, or in our universe’s emergence from a starting singularity, so those conditions were NEVER faced by matter, and never will be.]

      This means that the Black-Hole ^C-R, with it’s gravity so intense that not even light can escape, stresses matter and energy entering inside far greater than anything we can ever test.  While the C-R theory cannot duplicate those conditions, it can anticipate a different approach, or a new twist on the old doctrines.  For this reason, paying close attention to what we can detect (with less speculating on what we miss), is why the C-R theory reaches far different conclusions.

      I would like to expand upon the standard objections more upcoming blogs, so I can include the material I have already written, below.

EXTREME CONFINEMENT CONDITIONS

      Where the conditions become extreme, upon entering ANY Black-Hole ^C-R, the ONLY volume or region so totally affected lies immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  What the C-R theory proposes is that, in this extreme state, when the escape velocity is ABOVE the speed-of-light, this TWISTED region decouples, shifts, phases-out, or prevents all “known” electromagnetic interactions we are familiar with, and keeps them from operating normally.  {and this encounter with a Black-Hole ^C-R suppresses all of those conditions that science DOES truly understand}.  In the simplest terms, it “turns-off” both matter and energy, and places them in an inactivated, or suspended state, where they become inoperative.  HINT: this process is “unknown” to science, but incredibly useful. [And easy for humans to understand, because this “confinement” prevents any free interactions]

      Let me state, I cannot conclusively PROVE this concept, but I did come to [suspect or] understand that this is the path that nature has chosen to use, and I am trying to explain this simple plan to anyone willing to listen.  Please read-on, then consider the merits of this “new-thinking”, as a “package” deal, all or nothing.

      Let me also state, the above “neutralized-storage” concept is useless, by itself, unless it is paired-with a Black-Hole ^C-R that selectively ionizes, sorts, or strips-off some or ALL of the electrons, before it eats the nucleus.  By the oddest of (wink-wink) “co-incidences”, it does so by sorting it’s dinner BY MASS. [using the most extreme gravity conditions known to science].  This sorting process coincidentally strips-off and discards, or frees, all of the electrons, too.

      This concept is something like, if I were to blindfold you, and ask you to sort, by the best way, between a bowling ball, and a spread-out, lightweight, fluffy and puffy cotton ball, stretched-out to its maximum possible dimensions, I would tell you to keep the mass, and discard the fluff.  Even so handicapped (or challenged), with the blindfold, virtually any of us could easily sort the two perfectly, every time, without any type of difficulty.  We understand that selection process.

IRONY: [Sort-of NOT sorted, is all of what science now understands]

      Under the standard conditions that science “believes”, this charge-sorting, by mass will yield no benefits, as the attractions to the opposite charges are way too strong, and “Newtonian gravity” would not be strong-enough to affect electrical charges.  Since gravity, which is some 40 orders-of-magnitude (or 10⁴⁰ times) weaker, science says it cannot sort mass by MASS (or by weight) and dispose of the electrons, as: in the trash.

      The innovation only comes when one accepts the pair of conditions together, and understands the possibility of using BOTH new-ideas simultaneously, which only the C-R theory does.  Pairing the innovations, one can then see the advantages gained.  I cannot rationally explain to you HOW I came to understand “nature’s plan”, but, “OOPS”, I did.

      What I can state is: only if you understand and accept both of those conditions, can you come to observe, notice, and appreciate the hints that nature gives in “known phenomena”.  In my blogs these last few years, I have systematically included virtually every common report I have come-across, emphasizing large electrical currents, strong ionizations, magnetic fields, radio waves, X-rays, gamma-rays, and electrical (or electromagnetic related) items, anything that seems to fit-in to the C-R theory’s hypothesis.

      What then must still happen is that these accumulated electrical charges (protons and proton-neutrons) eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R, and stored-up in a neutralized manner, eventually becomes “unstable enough” to allow the triggering of a release mechanism.  This “mass-jailbreak-like release” could also be similar to a “Jack-in-the-box” also triggering the escape of the Jack, when one comes to the POP, in the tune for “POP-goes-the-weasel”.

      What I do understand is that mainstream science has “ignored” any possibility that “Nature” could or would exploit a deliberate condition like “mass-separation of electrical charges”, if it could be created.  What I am therefore trying to do is alert you home-readers to both the potential advantages to be gained, and show why such a concept IS almost retro-actively obvious. {After enough rank amateurs understand what is going-on, maybe we can collectively convince the experts who will reject these ideas.}

      After that, I will try to point-out where to look, what to look-for, what to notice, and why to suspect that something like this IS ALREADY going-on ALL AROUND us.  ALL one has to do is to observe the clues, “connect the dots”, and consider the benefits to nature, gained by this “NEW” mechanism.

      I will accept the critic’s point that the burden of proof, for accepting these two new [or imaginary] concepts rests entirely upon the C-R theory.  What I contend is: these ideas explain much, and give ones better insight into what is happening.

      For instance, if Black-Holes ^C-R do eat the mass, and strip-off the electrons, should we not expect to see some evidence of lightweight electrons “magnetically bunching-together” via. their magnetic fields? This causes the electrons* to escape, rushing-away into two collimated jets, and easily explaining: “*Just What” is lightweight and energetic enough to be fleeing all of those massive Black-Holes ^C-R in those high-speed jets, at 99.99% of lightspeed?

      Our Milky-Way galaxy’s two 25,000 light-year-tall lobes, filled-up with over 100,000 supernova’s-worth of energy {measuring 7 million degrees} becomes a lot more palatable when one understands the source for both the energy, and for the electrons, or EXPECTS it’s cause.

      The flux-tube current, between Jupiter and Io, cyclicly recurring once in every Io-orbit around Jupiter, with up-to 5,000,000 AMPS at it’s peak, (and with every Amp representing an “Avogadro’s number” of electrical charges, per second), also becomes “more-reasonable” when that quantity of spare electrons is up for grabs, or available.

      The numbers and intensities of thunderstorms occurring on planets like Jupiter and Saturn, and the aurora’s visible on Venus, Earth, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Triton, Titan, and on and on also take on new significance.  The magnetic levels of the solar flares, solar prominences, CME’s [Coronal Mass Ejections], and sunspots indicate some high level of electrical activity on the sun.

      {I did read that earth’s aurora alone can have a folded-dipole current measured at one million amps.  That is only here on earth, where we live.}

      When one considers the levels of POLARIZED light coming from galaxies, is it as “unreasonable” to posit that electromagnetism might contribute to “holding-together” a galaxy’s spinning arms, and driving the twisting-magnetic forces into the familiar spiral shape, in at least some cases?

      What I am attempting to do is to suggest a “reasonableness” to these heretofore randomly considered events, and suggest that there is an underlying commonality [or pattern] between them, having a root-cause.  I will then leave it to the home-readers to decide for themselves whether they are convinced, or at least, intrigued, by the possibilities.  The case is certainly not iron-clad, or final, but there seems to be indications of SOMETHING “C-R-like” happening.

      The dilemma becomes, is it the C-R theory-related events that drive these electrical phenomenon, or is it something else? If there is insufficient “proof” now, I expect, as the newest observations continually restock the C-R theory’s evidence-bin, home-readers will notice common themes suggested by only the C-R theory.

      By all means, reject these ideas, if they do not “bear fruit”, and explain much to you. If the new observations are merely random, and not interconnected to electromagnetic interactions, if they show no conclusive pattern of charge-separation on a massive scale, if polarized light, magnetic fields, cosmic rays, and the like-type phenomena are not almost always found simultaneously, feel free to reject them.  If you do sense some new patterns, and find the C-R theory useful to explain the “WHY?” you are seeing them, then feel more confident as time goes by.

No Gas-shortage Here!!!

      Another interesting article, in the previous month’s issue of Astronomy magazine, for April 2012, on page 16, an article mentioned that there is a good sized gas cloud, about 3 times earth’s mass, heading for our galaxy’s center at 5 million miles per hour [or 8 million kph].  That gas cloud should encounter the Black-Hole ^C-R there, named SGR A* (Sagittarius A star), around June of next year (2013).  

      That should give someone the opportunity to notice if the intense jets of high speed matter (rushing-away at 99.99% of the speed-of-light), appears AFTER the Black-Hole ^C-R eats that matter, but first strips-off the electrons.  It will be interesting to see just how quickly, if at all, the high-speed jets will appear after the Black-Hole ^C-R there, starts dining.  

      NOTE: By the C-R theory, these jets will not appear if the Black-Hole ^C-R is quiescent, or not eating.  Unless “dinner” is present in large quantities, no jets will exist.

      By standard thinking, the radiation coming from outside the event horizon (the place where matter simply disappears after it is eaten) is caused only by the heat from the excessive friction.  The gas, rubbing-together with other matter, will release extreme energy from the whirlpool’s vortex, and generate that heat and light we detect as coming from there.  It would also be where the optical glow will be at a maximum.

      Probably, the C-R theory is the only theory advocating the almost total negative-electrical-charge removal, and the separation of those electrons from the heavier nuclei, which will also become fully-ionized when they are eaten.

      NOTE: The C-R theory says: It is the sudden appearance of those stripped-off, negative electrons that creates the electrical imbalances, and disturbances to generate the enormous energies there.  These electrons release the electrical potential to create the X-rays, gamma rays, and radio waves, that the simple action of friction alone cannot explain.

      Conventional theory also does not accept or believe that once the positive charges enter immediately-inside the Black-Hole ^C-R, that those positive charges can be suspended, turned-off, temporarily [not permanently] neutralized, or inactivated, and that all external knowledge of those charges becomes “lost” or invisible and undetectable from the outside.  This would include suppressing or isolating and insulating any presence of their magnetic fields from the inside, (although the magnetic fields from the electrons remaining outside are fair-game, and will not be suppressed).  

      Of course, since science “claims”: there is no external evidence of the massive quantities of positive charge trapped inside, (that the C-R theory says is stored-up there), science thinks that absence “proves” that nothing like that condition of excess charges exists on the inside.

      Again, the C-R theory introduces the “NEW” concept of exploiting the most extreme conditions, [where the escape velocity EXCEEDS lightspeed], as nature’s way of taking advantage of, and redeeming, an otherwise impossible situation.  If conventional matter collapsed into a singularity, and the most extreme conditions WERE THERE, at the center, there would be a barren, desert-like, gap, void, or barrier, needing to be crossed for both incoming matter, and any outgoing “knowledge-of that matter”.  All theories yield that, because of these extreme conditions, we [humanity] have little hope of ever accessing, or interacting-with anything at that singularity.  Because “known-conditions” are grossly exceeded, our common-sense, everyday rules of physics, quantum interactions, gravity, and anything else fall prey to oblivion, at worst, or a severe-isolation, at the least.

      The C-R theory is trying to offer the home-readers “A Considerably lesser-evil”, [to understand], when choosing between “The lesser of two evils”.  

      I just picked-up the newest issue of Scientific American, for April 2012, and there was an interesting article by Steven Carlip, titled Quantum Gravity in Flatland.  This article is the closest concept I have seen in the mainstream media to suggesting that by considering a 2-D version of gravity theory, somewhat dealing with a Flatland-like (but simplified) universe, might yield clues to understanding gravity in an easier-to-calculate, and simplified mathematical setting.  I did sense that approach comes closer to appreciating the geometric-like contribution to gravity, [or topology], not needing a speed-of-light-like radiation (from a distance).

      Unfortunately, the article did miss that, if we live in a closed universe, that would superimpose a preferred reference frame over the universe, that could finally show how gravity changes matter, by location.  I just got the magazine today, and I am adding-in this portion, after the rest of this blog was already written.  Since I considered this concept important, I wanted to comment now, rather than waiting until the next blog.

      Since the article misses that our closed universe does change matter, by location, and that concept fits-in well with the local topological contribution that this article does cover, it would explain to the home reader more fully what the C-R theory’s concept is. If the home-reader can keep in mind that extra idea, then this article may help one understand gravity WITHOUT needing gravitational radiation (or gravitons) to affect the changes.  The topology [or the geometry] literally changes, by position.

      In the C-R theory concept, at the center of our universe (also known as “The Great Attractor”, an ironically inappropriate name, because it does nothing of the kind), matter is in the least curved state in this universe.  As one proceeds in any direction outward, curvature slowly increases until we reach the fully curved (or closed-off) positions, at our universe’s outer edge.

      Our position on earth is, closer to the Great Attractor, and farther from all the outer edges.  Since we are more slowed-down that “The Great Attractor”, everything there is blueshifted to us, because it is clocking faster, and NOT because we are being attracted to it.  Further out, in any direction, everything is redshifted to us.  Again, objects are redshifted because they are “gravitationally” more slowed-down, and they ARE clocking-slower than we are.  NOTE: No dark energy is needed to maintain this status.  Because all outward-lying objects are “worth less energy”, they are NOT PERMITTED to fall inwards, without acquiring more energy.  This process totally stabilizes our universe, and makes collapse “inward” impossible.

      NOTE: In spite of the increasing redshift in ALL directions, our universe

IS NOT expanding.  (Therefore, the expansion is not expanding, either.  The expansion was an artifact derived after “falsely” correcting “the observed data”, then drawing conclusions from it, after it was corrupted, or changed to earth’s time-rate.)

      Another interesting article in an earlier issue of Scientific American was about the long-term future of both our universe, and more specifically, our galaxy, maybe 200 billion years into the future (under the Big Bang scenario).  It discusses the types of phenomena that would still be visible, and the changes that would be apparent as compared to today’s universe.

      The C-R theory would disagree, and state that our universe would appear almost identical to today’s appearance, but with some re-arranging of the inhabitants of the universe.  Unfortunately, there is no quick way to test either outcome, short of waiting most of that full time-frame and then, taking measurements.

      This is one area where we may eventually gather-up enough evidence beforehand, that we almost surely will not have to wait the full period of time to tell what the universe will look like, then.  Even if we need only wait a billion years into the future to tell if the C-R theory is correct (or wrong), that interval is too large to inspire immediate confidence in the C-R theory.

      What I would hope to accomplish is to suggest likely areas where the differences in theory-outcomes might be made known much earlier.  If sufficient evidence is found showing large contributions from electromagnetic fields, perhaps science will concede some level of grudging acknowledgment that maybe the C-R theory is not all bad and useless.

      Some reasonable and logical arguments from the C-R theory.

      There are esoteric levels of understanding from the C-R theory, where the overall plan for this universe comes across with good reasoning, definite (and not nebulous or undefined) uses for Black-Holes ^C-R and “new” properties derived from storage conditions of the matter concerned.

NATURE’S ASSET RECOVERY MODES, as a role-model

      If I were to argue about nature’s fondness for recovering assets after their initial use (or at least, the last, or most recent use or cycle), there is very little chance of something on earth being placed in such a state where the difficulty of accessing it would prevent nature from re-using it, or finding new uses for expired, dead, expended, worn-out, lost, misplaced anything (just fill in the blank), and something on earth will try to take it, eat it, move it, recycle it, build with it, live in or on it, or just do something useful with it.

      There is virtually no environment on earth, (except, maybe, molten lava), where some lifeform will give-up entirely on using [or reusing] anything discarded, eliminated, decayed, shed, buried, stored, or protected by some other lifeforms.  From the sand resulting from wearing-down a towering mountain, to the chalk deposits, built up from years of forminifera dying in the oceans, nature simply seems to feel obligated to re-use almost everything, recycle everything, recover almost everything, somewhere down the line, but more-often, as soon as possible.

      From this principle, I would feel comfortable in arguing that nature would extend that same philosophy (or intentional design principle), and have it function elsewhere in this universe, when it comes to letting valuable matter go to waste, or be re-used.  That I know of, only the C-R theory has a built-in mechanism for nature pre-planning the “asset recovery” of even the most seemingly insignificant faded-out white dwarf star comet, asteroid, gas cloud, or supernova remnant, to include every atom, and every sub-atomic particle ever eaten by ANY Black-Hole ^C-R!!!

      Conventional theory seems to be content with nature “patiently” waiting for up to 10¹⁰⁰ years before the conventional black holes to start to radiate-away, by Hawking radiation, sometime in the far-far distant future.

      HINT: The C-R theory will explain why there is never any Hawking radiation, and never can be anything like that. [I will mention it, but not cover that, here, in this blog.]

      I would argue that nature on earth has nowhere near that level of patience to wait that long, and rarely lets something as lowly as one fallen leaf “to sit around to do nothing” with that level of consistency.  How much more likely is it then, that nature would let an entire star (or stellar remnant) sit idly by, un-harvested and unused for eons upon eons?

      While I cannot prove it, I can claim it, and suggest there is a much more active, much more practical mechanism in place, and suggest how science can recognize it’s footprint (or activities) almost everywhere that one looks.

      The C-R theory also would contend with the almost universal statements that nothing that enters a conventional black hole ever comes out again.  By their very nature, the C-R theory obeying Black-Holes ^C-R, [or, ALL of them], not one measly little proton gets eaten before nature has the plan in hand for how to recover 100% of everything eaten.  In short, the C-R theory never faces the dilemma of how to recover matter eaten by a Black-Hole ^C-R.

      Another area of contention is the currently popular idea in the mainstream that most of the information about matter which falls into a conventional black hole is somehow contained, or encoded two dimensionally, kind-of as a hologram.  One thing in common, is that this holographic information is thought to lie immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius, although mainstream science has no idea how nature could use, or access this information, or recover anything from it.

      If any theoreticians would like to set up a potential usefulness “battle-of-the concepts”, I would be more than happy to pit the C-R theory’s Neutral Zone ^C-R concept against the conventional theory’s holographic principle.  In a battle of “human understandability”, the C-R theory’s Neutral Zone ^C-R should win, hands-down. {Believability might be lost, but I did not stake that in this battle.}

      The second part of the battle should pit usefulness of the concept for C-R vs. standard theory.  Since the usefulness of the Neutral Zone ^C-R both restores entropy, and recycles all matter and energy eaten by the Black-Hole ^C-R, and it also provides an ecologically simple source of those high-energy positive particles, a.k.a., cosmic rays, whereas the holographic principle still has no practical way to extract anything back out (at the speed-of-light, anyway).

      Whether the home-readers will believe the C-R theory’s concepts or not, I will challenge anyone to extract more “potentially-useful-to nature” benefits from any conventional black hole, vs. the claims made about every Black-Hole ^C-R.  If the principle of Occams’ razor can be invoked, that the simplest overall concept, with the easiest to understand mechanism is the most likely to be correct, the C-R theory should win that battle, too.

A listing of practical concepts where the C-R theory might be useful to science.

      I wanted to summarize a listing of where I believe the C-R theory ideas can be useful to science.  If the C-R theory is right (and maybe even if it is totally wrong), these simple, new ideas are still areas where it is useful to know and to evaluate the differences.

      A List of Unique, C-R theory Ideas:

A: We live in a NON-isotropic universe.  Science made a terrible mistake of believing relativity, where there is no preferred reference-frame, and they have maintained that everywhere else in this universe is the same, property wise, as here on earth.

B: Science has missed such an obvious point, that the Black-Hole ^C-R has many differences.  Here are some of the main differences in our “brand-name Black-Holes ^C-R:

            1. The real action takes place across the Schwarzschild radius [also called the event horizon].

            2. The Black-Hole ^C-R is pre-designed to exploit this condition, where the escape velocity IS ABOVE the “speed-of-light”.

            3.  The Black-Hole ^C-R sorts mass BY MASS, rejecting the lightweight, flighty, more kineticly-active electrons, and eating [capturing, too] the now-ionized protons and proton-neutron combinations.

            4.  The storage conditions immediately inside the Schwarzschikd radius [and not at the center, in a singularity], confine and store the proton-proton-neutrons in a neutralized condition, that cannot be sensed externally, while this mode is intact.

            5.  The Black-Hole ^C-R stores-up THE ONLY KNOWN force THAT CAN overcome gravity, in a real-world setting.

            6.  The storage condition also “forces” matter back-into a more concentrated state, reversing entropy.  NOTE: The Neutral Zone ^C-R simply cannot obey the second law of thermodynamics, or the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to matter in that condition.

            7.  No speed-of-light radiation can be emitted by a Black-Hole ^C-R, period.

            8.  Gravity is caused by the “action” of curvature “affecting” the “energy-containing capacity” of each participating mass, locally. [NOT radiated in, from a distance, but changed right where the mass resides]

            9.  The “force” of gravity IS NOT RECONCILABLE with the other 3 forces, the strong force, the (electro)weak force, and electromagnetism.  Gravity uses an “indirect” cause, if you will, an aftereffect.  HINT: If I squeezed a wet sponge, and water came-out, that would be natural, and understandable.  Think along a similar line, for how gravity extracts energy from matter as it drops.  Otherwise, for a mass to be lifted-up, something, [you?] must add the actual energy to allow the total energy-value of the mass to increase.  This energy directly affects the mass, either, by letting it “clock faster”, or by actually increasing it’s energy by the exact value of the energy used.

            10. A lifted-up mass is NOT equal to a dropped-down mass.  Some incremental property of the mass itself changes.  Each mass “carries it’s energy with it”, the energy does not come-from “elsewhere”, and does not vanish into the void.  (Science has totally missed this concept, and gotten it WRONG.)

      C: The specific electrical behavior of Black-Holes ^C-R creates enormous electrical imbalances, magnetic fields, polarizations of EM energy.

      D: Our universe IS the inside region [the Active Zone ^C-R] of a universe-sized Black-Hole ^C-R.

      E: Our universe IS “a laboratory-model version” of the inside of a Black-Hole ^C-R, readily available for our study.  HINT: EVERY property visible in our universe IS a property of EVERY inside of a Black-Hole ^C-R, but on a much larger scale.

      F: The 2.7K background radiation has nothing to do with a Big Bang, and IS NOT proof-of-it.  It is a cooled-off, diluted version of everyday events, averaged-out over time.

      G: The 2.7K will not redshift (or cool down) with time, as it would do if it really was the remaining echo of the Big Bang.

      H: The 2.7K value is NOT the same elsewhere in this universe, but varies by location.

      I: Our universe IS NOT Isochronic {iso=same, chronos=time}, [with everything happening at the same time rate everywhere], but the time-rate varies by location, decreasing with the distance from the center, where the time-rate is not slowed-down.

      J: Since both redshifts, {increasing in all directions}, and a blueshift, {increasing in magnitude, closer to one location}, are visible, this demonstrates that our universe operates at internally varying time-rates, changing continually, by location.

      K: Only a {gravitationally} CLOSED universe would show this “varying time-rate property” mentioned in “I” above.

      L: A CLOSED universe has exactly the right amount of mass at the correct density to close-off spacetime, from the inside.  It is stable, and cannot expand or contract without acquiring additional energy, or shedding energy “without radiating it away, outside”.  The C-R theory view is: this is not just a coincidence, but that, once enough mass/energy at the right density comes together, the “universe-inside” kind-of closes itself off from the external world.

      HINT: EVERY Black-Hole ^C-R has a closed-universe inside so CLOSED UNIVERSES are not that rare. {They are common.}

      M: Only the C-R theory contends that “gravity” does not and cannot add-to or take-away-from the energy when the photon (the individual particle of energy/light) travels about in a “gravitational field” travelling at it’s standard “speed-of-light”.  Rather, when the measurer claims that they have measured changes in the photon, they are really measuring is that THEIR energy reference level has varied [changed] as compared to the photon, and THIS is what changed.

      HINT: {After thinking about it} If this method does not eventually make more sense to you, ask yourself by what possible [and practical] mechanism could gravity smoothly INCREASE the individual energy of each photon as it falls, and take-away [or remove] energy, as the photon climbs.

      NEXT HINT: Some billions-of-years-old photons would have been otherwise have been added-to and taken-from in every system they passed-through.

      N: Curvature, a somewhat (geo-)metric-like property, does not require radiating (or em energy) to change the level-of energy with position.  Curvature affects matter when matter travels about.

      HINT: Think of the slope of a mountain, existing without emitting continuous energy, and dependent on the shape of the mass of the mountain (changing very slowly over millions of years, but not suddenly or dynamically).  This slope-shape is to geology something-like what curvature is to spacetime.  The curvature exists, but is influenced by the presence of mass, as mass moves about.  With more mass, curvature increases, with less mass, curvature decreases.

      O: The photon is unaffected by curvature, other than a slight bending of it’s path, changing it’s direction.

      P: “Gravity” does not remove energy from, or add energy-to a photon as it travels about.  However, the energy-worth of the measurer and (his/her/their) equipment does change, rather than the photon itself.

      Q: The Black-Hole ^C-R stores-up protons and proton-neutron combo’s in an electrically neutralized manner.

      R: Eventually, this Neutral Zone ^C-R immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius, becomes primed for a catastrophic release.

      S: Release of the confined, neutralized charges occurs when some external object shifts the neutralized zone’s envelope, and allows some, up to all, of the charges to escape.

      T: These release events range from a coronal mass ejection (or CME), nova, supernova, Seyfert galaxy, active galactic nucleus (AGN), quasar, X-ray burst, and a gamma-ray burst.

      U: A great side-benefit, thrown-in for free, to this process, is the simple, natural explanation for the origins of the release-of high-energy cosmic rays (positive charges), without a reciprocal high-energy pool of excited electrons.

      V: Look for a universe-full of charge-separating events, positive charge release events, magnetic fields, polarized light, ions, affecting the shapes of the galaxies, holding the arms together, while twisting the shape into a spiral.  No dark matter is needed.

      W: No dark energy is needed to expand this universe, just a re-calibration of the true time-rates occurring at differing distances will fix everything.  Time rates ARE as they appear, and they need no correcting.

      There may be additional items, but these were the biggest ones that occurred to me on the spur of the moment, as I was thinking about the C-R theory.  The home reader is invited to suggest other possible changes, too.  There is already enough material in this blog, so come can wait till later.

      All of these areas above are significantly different in the C-R theory approach, and differ from what mainstream science believes happens, if not improving the usefulness.

      The home-reader is invited to read through the C-R theory, at your leisure, to learn more about these items, as this blog is intended more as a simple overview of them, or a listing.  I invite readers to ask questions about them, if I can answer them, I would like to do so.  Again, the changes are profound, and they all strongly affect how we perceive this universe, and it’s contents [to include ourselves, and all things we can observe, that we know-of].

      If you reject the C-R theory’s point of view, that is your right, but be aware that, if you do not at least consider these items, and honestly question how you arrived at your current understandings of each one of these, the potential exists for great mischief or confusion.

      I can only state that I now believe that the C-R theory ways are the correct ways, and that the conventional ways are mis-interpretations of reality, and represent bad choices made, way back in time, by individuals from many years ago.  If those choices were incorrect, back then, they ARE NOW the basis for almost ALL of earth’s current understanding of our universe, and what goes on inside it.

      I will agree that there is a vast, irreconcilable gulf between standard thinking, and the C-R theory point-of-view.  The real question is: Can anyone conclusively test (or prove) which one (if any) is the correct one? While I cannot definitely prove it, I will humbly suggest where to look, what to notice, and how to test-for various outcomes, if the C-R theory is correct.  (If I did not think it was correct, I would be much more hesitant to promote and publish these views.)

      If I were merely concerned that these were possibilities (but not probabilities), I would be much more reserved in expressing my views and my verdicts.

      If my views were more nebulous, and not nearly so specific, and I suggested “generalities”, and used perhaps quite often, I would also be more reserved.  As a proponent of the C-R theory views, my “neck” is on the theoretical chopping block, big-time, and I have been very specific as to the types of electrical phenomenon that I believe should be noticed.  If these things are merely an illusion, and if they are not going-on, that should be apparent over time.

      If the areas I point-out to you home-readers are fictional, and not occurring, then it should become obvious that “I am off my rocker” to put it mildly, or that I am self-deceived.  If you also detect these same types of phenomena to notice what I claim should be evidence-for (if not proof-of) the C-R theory’s concepts, then either you are fooled, too, or there IS something to my claims, and some degree of validity.

      What I offer each home reader in almost every blog, is the opportunity to either prove me wrong, agree with what I am saying, or at least, admit that there is enough “wiggle-room” or legitimate doubt raised-up against the Big Bang-type thinking, that the C-R theory at least deserves some further investigation, and more serious testing.

      I do apologize that the C-R theory is not, primarily, a mathematical understanding, with very specific numbers fitting into page-wide equations, but a theory of possibilities, pathways, and simple understandings, a supreme simplification of the overall understanding, and some new insight into an overall plan, a road-map-like guide to what I suspect is going on.

      What I try to offer is a workable plan, a humanly-understandable account, showing a logical approach to explain a wide variety of “anomalies”, but fitting together in a simple-to-understand, way.  Hopefully, these blogs can serve as a “field-guide” to recognizing and anticipating Black-Hole ^C-R behavior.

      I regret that I cannot instantly prove these claims, but that some items may take billions of years to fully play out where we can definitely say, yes or no, it does work that way.  On the other hand, I believe that there is so much evidence, almost overwhelming, that some people will be forced to consider these alternatives seriously, or find alternate, more conventional explanations, that offer a better real-world-fit, and a closer approximation to a full understanding.

      All I can say is that I think I have something very unique to offer you, and since I am not trying to sell it to you at the highest possible price, but to give it away, for free, as the product of my hobby, that I have no strong financial gain from you if I can get you “to buy-into” the C-R theory’s ideas.

      Thank you for visiting, and I hope you will consider re-visiting often enough to appreciate the differences, then make your selections as to which theory fits reality better.

Jerry Reynard April 19, 2012

April Fool’s Day blog

      I would like to welcome our 42,000^th visitor, and by the time this blog is posted, we should be midway to our 43,000^th visitor.  I appreciate your taking the time to check out the ideas at this web-site, and I hope you get some useful ideas and concepts here that cannot be obtained anywhere else.

      Even though the C-R theory has had great success lately in attracting readers from an international perspective, the front portion of this blog will be devoted to a return to my “first love”, or the humorous part of the Comedy-Recycling theory.  The later portion of the blog will be addressing whether most of world, and science too, has already been “April-Fooled” for the last 80-90-some years.

[This next part, the April-Fool’s Day part of this blog, is a science-based humor section could be skipped by international readers.  NOTE: This section below IS NOT intended for literal translation into other languages, and is based on common (American) English-language and word-usage items.]

 {International readers may resume reading after the partial line of asterisks, at the heading: A New Take on an old experiment}

 

The Humorous part of the Blog:

      How is the Schwarzschild radius similar to a good baseball strikeout pitch?

The first is a “throne for a curve” ball, and the second is thrown for a curveball.

      Biochem lab joke:

Q:  What is red and green and goes around and around at 100 MPH?

A:   A frog in a blender.

Q: What has 18 arms, 18 legs, catches flies and weighs a billion solar masses?

A: A supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R with its own baseball team.

      If there ever was a C-R theory fan-club, what could be it’s motto?

We really “dig” Black-Holes ^C-R!!!

      Imponderable question of the day: Will a helium-filled balloon still float in the vacuum of space?

Q:  What would the C-R theory’s critics say was the biggest difference between the C-R theory’s author, and a navy ship after a fiery chili dinner?

A:   The critics would say: “The navy ship should wait a day before they need to have their “head” examined.”

      The “less than intelligent man” went into a hardware store and asked the nearest sales clerk for her advice as to which measuring-tape model would be the best one for him to buy so he could measure the length of a day.  He said that she simply talked him out of the purchase, because she said he was just too “week-minded” to use any of their store’s models to measure the length of a day, and thus, his measured results would have to be divided by 7 to determine it correctly.

      [Joke multiplier: I could pun: The same man also said, he “longed” for the good old days, when math was simpler, before this new math stuff took over.]

Q: Why do freed-electrons leave their respective Black-Holes ^C-R in two near-light-speed jets?

A: Because propeller planes would simply take too long (and propellers will not fly at all in a vacuum).

A riddle:

Why did the “less than intelligent” person use miles of rope to wrap-around a small lake several times?

Because he wanted to create a tied-pool.

A Magic Question?

Q: How do you make our entire universe “just disappear”?

A: Believe in the Big Bang, and it already did it for you (before its beginning).

Q: Why is mainstream science like a cosmologist stuck inside a Black-Hole ^C-R?

A: Because both of them are still “left in the dark” about Black-Holes ^C-R.

Why is a Black-Hole’s ^C-R Neutral Zone ^C-R like a story by Edgar Allen Poe?

A: They are both excellent “tales of whoa/tales of woe”!!

Redefinition of a geography axiom: At most modern shopping malls now, the shortest distance between two points is at least twice as long as it should be.

Photographers always take a picture of my bad side.  

A colleague: Oh, and which side is your bad side?

My outside.

Good advice from the Jester: It is better to keep your mouth shut, and let people suspect you are a fool, than to open your mouth, and confirm their suspicions.

If a stopped clock is right twice a day, how does it know?

 

If a clock could talk, what would it tell time?

...... {Chose one}:

A: You said the same things yesterday, verbatim!!

B: That wasn’t what you told me a minute ago.

C: You may be right, but it still ticks me off.

D: I’d like a second’s opinion.

Jester: My favorite days of the workweek are the ones that are already over.

Imponderable Question (for kids to think about at your leisure):

Does rain get yelled-at by it’s mom when it goes outside to play, and gets wet?

What is the Jester’s favorite movie title?

Work is a Four Letter Word (NOTE: A relatively obscure British satire film from the ‘60's)

What is the Jester’s favorite Bob Hope movie line?

“When it comes to facing danger, brave men run in my family.”

The Jester’s favorite book joke:

“Beside a dog, a book is a man’s best friend.  Inside a dog, it’s too dark to read.” ...Groucho Marx

A college question:

What happens if you flunked the test of time?

Jester: If we are talking-about humor, the salary that I earn by laying here on the top of the home page as the C-R theory’s icon is a big joke, but, not one that’s funny to me.

A Riddle for C-R theory understanders, only:

[NOTICE: This riddle is only funny if you understand the C-R theory:]

Riddle: What has 14,000,000,000 arms and 14,000,000,000 legs, and sleeps inside a Black-Hole ^C-R every night?

A: [All-of] Humanity!!

[Jester speaking]: Riddle: Why am I (the Jester) almost-like a Black-Hole ^C-R?

A: Because we each specialize ingesting (a pun on: in jesting).

Pun: A Black-Hole ^C-R is a mass-sieve body. (Pun on: massive)

      The Jester’s Fish Story (especially for this April Fool’s Day blog)

      The Jester just told me about this fishy encounter, a tale from some time ago, on another, earlier, April Fool’s Day, also occurring in a year, after a leap year’s day.

      The Jester always takes-off every April-Fool’s Day, because it is his favorite day of the year.  He decided to have some fun, and take a vacation day, and do some early-morning fishing at the same time.  The Jester noticed that he could not find his fishing hooks, so he decided he would be lazy and just tie the worm to the fishing line.  

      Being lazier still, the Jester also decided, rather than to have to awake even earlier on his day off, just to dig-up some worms, he would simply break-off a few worm-sized tree-branch twigs now, then spray paint them in a worm-like color.  After the paint dried, the Jester then figured he could just coat the fake “worm” with some glue on that morning, so that the fish would just stick to the fake worm when they came-by to check it out, and save the Jester from needing to go buy new fish-hooks.

      Now the smarter home-reader out there would say, but hey, when the glue on the fake worm gets wet, the glue will dissolve or get waterlogged.  Well, in working for the C-R theory, the Jester is a pretty smart fellow, so he also figured this out, too, so he came equipped with a can of waterproofing spray.  He thought he would just spray the fake worm with waterproofing, after he applied the glue, so that the glue would not get waterlogged.

      When the morning to fish arose, the Jester was prepared, and had his fake worms ready, painted, dried, coated with fresh, wet glue, and properly waterproofed.  He tied the fake worms to the fishing line, threw them in, and started waiting for the fish to notice them.  He hoped the fish would come close enough, and just get stuck to the glue on the fake worms.

      Now I am no good judge of the Jester’s plan, since I am not a fisherman, and I cannot say that the plan could have ever worked properly, but here is the report, straight from the Jester, just as he told me.

      The smaller fish were not that interested, so they just swam by without giving the fake worm much notice.  After ten minutes or so, the slightly larger fish, those who had been around for at least a year or two, swam by and came in for a closer look, but they were not that interested, either.

      Within a half hour or so, the larger fish, those that had been around for many years, finally got curious, and started coming-by.  I believe they were far too wise to fall for the Jester’s tricks, but that’s when a funny thing happened.  

      The older and larger fish just started to find this extremely funny.  They just could not believe that this stupid human, (dressed in his full-color Jester’s regalia, too), had been foolish enough to think they would fall for his plan.

      The older fish had been around long enough, and they knew how the fishing “game” was supposed to be played.  Some of them had probably been caught and released several times, before.

      I suspect that the older, wiser fish could even read a little-bit of some of our human minds, just enough to know what was expected of them, and that is how they had lived so long, without getting caught, and gotten as large as they were.

      Anyway, these older fish just found this fake worm, tied on to the line, coated with worm-colored paint and wet glue, then waterproofed, just so darned funny that they could not contain themselves without giggling.  After the bigger fish all started laughing, the smaller ones finally caught-on to the joke, too, and joined-in.

      From the beginning of time, there probably have not been more than a dozen cases of fish ever laughing so hard before (or since).  None of these encounters have ever been officially recorded for history, so this blog is the very first written account I can find.

      Even though they did not lunge at the fake worm, and they were never in danger of getting caught, as the Jester had planned, the larger fish just lingered-around and started laughing so hard that this created a noticeable disturbance on the surface of the water.  All-of the swirls and the turbulence from the laughing fish stirred-up the water, almost like a bubble bath.  

      Well, the Jester noticed the gathering of these huge fish down there, and he thrust-in his fishing net right behind them.  Normally, these fish would dart away as soon as they heard the net splash, but they were all just rolling around in a giggle-fit, and half-paralyzed with unstoppable, contagious laughter. [And this danger from the net was unrecognized by these fish, who had never been so thoroughly entertained before.]

      When he lifted the net, the Jester found at least 3 huge fish gasping for their gill-fulls of water, but in our air, and all emitted that very distinctive “fish belly-laugh” sound. Now, being the consummate, professional entertainer that he was, the Jester noticed that those fish were actually laughing “convulsively-hard”, and not just gasping for oxygen, as the normal fish-catch would do.

      Needless to say, even though they were laughing mostly at his set-up, and not at a true punch-line, which is a comedian’s “adrenaline rush”, the Jester did not have the heart to eat them.  Even though they would have been a prized catch, and they were some pretty-tasty types of fish, according to the Jester, they were also one of the better audiences of hearty-laughers he had ever had.  

      A professional Jester recognizes any appreciative crowd, and takes a liking to them, {even though they could have been his dinner, instead}, and he simply could not treat them that badly, by eating them.

      So the Jester went hungry that morning, and let those fish go back into their river-homes, also sternly warning them that he would not be quite so sentimental on another day, if he ever caught them again.  Ultimately, the Jester considered releasing them a small price to pay for the unique experience so few human fishermen have ever had, of finding the oldest and largest fish responding in a laughter-fit.

      Anyone who has ever seen fish in an aquarium knows they are a very tough crowd to amuse, even to make them crack a slight smile, much less get a good guffah out of them, is unlikely.  To have seen 3 of the biggest of them in such a high state of merriment is still one of the Jester’s most prized memories.

      When I mentioned to the Jester that I was looking for some new funny stuff for my April Fool’s day blog, he said that my request just reminded him of that situation, from at least one leap-years April-Fool’s Day ago, and he volunteered this account for your home-amusement.

      Now I know that some fishermen are prone to exaggerating their stories a bit, and as a professional comedian, too, the Jester might have been tempted to go beyond all reasonable expectations to stick with the pure, unadulterated truth. He swears that this is all true (but he did have both fingers crossed, and winked one-eye a couple times), so I will let the home reader decide on his veracity.

      While I do not profess the above story is necessarily, “science”, it is an April-Fool’s Day story with an April-Fool’s Day theme, as told by the C-R theory’s personal Jester, and it was funny, to me, so I threw this story into this special blog.  Nevertheless, it is a fitting fish-tale for April Fool’s Day, (and, perhaps prone to a fisherman’s embellishment), and thus, the Jester’s account of an earlier April-Fool’s Day fishing trip made it into my blog this year.

******************* International readers, resume here:

      A NEW TAKE ON AN OLD EXPERIMENT (that anyone can do at home) {for no money}

      I mentioned an experiment in last month’s blog, but I neglected to include it, or write about it, then.  By the great coincidence that both this experiment’s premise and conclusion would not be believed or taken seriously by science, why not also include it in this April Fool’s Day blog.  I include it, not because I can fool you with it now, but because I believe science has already been April-fooled for these many years, and not just one special day at a time, although I cannot prove it.

      While this experiment is not particularly difficult to perform successfully, and it is not necessary to precisely record all of the details, it is cheap, and easy to duplicate from any accessible location, anywhere in this world.  Technically, many of us have performed this experiment; but without considering a unique observation from the C-R theory, you may have missed the most important NEW idea on it, that I will cover now.  

      HINT: Nature may have hidden an important clue, right under our very noses, that almost no-one has noticed.

      Toss a ball (or some other object that can be safely tossed) into the air, in a safe manner, where it can be caught or recorded, over and over.

      Notice that the ball will travel skyward, slow-down, stop, then drop back down.  The observant reader will claim, what is so unique or revolutionary about that? That is what I will try to tell you, now.

      From the C-R theory’s point-of-view, it is gravitational curvature at work here, and not an actual “force” of gravity.  Let me try to explain the difference in reasoning.

      From the Newtonian way, gravity is somehow generated in response to the net-sum of the masses of two (or more) objects, as an action-at-a-distance.  As it has been tested, from above earth’s surface, Newton’s theory is solidly accepted, and held in high regard.

      Later, Einstein postulated that what we thought of as gravity, was an (after)effect of mass, called curvature, as a property of spacetime, which caused an effect on nearby masses, that made gravity work.  Where the C-R theory is attempting to advance the understanding, this “effect” of gravity, is actually caused locally, and it mostly affects each mass, locally.  This “effect” is not produced (or emitted) from far-away, and then radiated-in, say, like electromagnetism.  Curvature changes [or warps] the “carrying-capacity”, or the ability of matter to hold energy, allowing matter to store more (or absorb more) energy when lifted-up, and/or to liberate energy from a local mass, if that mass was allowed to fall an additional amount.

      A very important result from this new way of thinking is that the immediate effect [acting as gravity], directly changes the internal energy-worth of the local mass, at the closest location to where the energy was either added or freed-up.

      The biggest difference in this form of “gravity” is AFTER the masses’ energy has been lowered.  At the very extremes, when mass falls into a Black-Hole ^C-R, it’s energy is lowered as far as is physically possible, and it cannot ever go any lower. {That mass is in a state where it cannot lose more energy.} This change takes place immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  This confines the minimizing effect exclusively to this Neutral Zone ^C-R region.  [Essentially, like the outermost skin-layer of the Black-Hole ^C-R.]

      Two masses already inside two Black-Holes ^C-R are already at their lowest possible state, and each cannot be lowered any further by being “eaten-again” by the other. This also keeps one Black-Hole ^C-R from attracting (and eating) another Black-Hole ^C-R, a unique prediction that can only be recognized by using the C-R theory.

      At a lesser extreme, this means that a mass stored in less-extreme conditions will ALWAYS fall to the MAXIMUM amount of curvature (if possible), but NO FURTHER. (A mass cannot continue to “fall”, back into a more-energetic region, where curvature is less.  It must either acquire more energy to be allowed back into lesser curvature region, or stay put, in the most curved portion-of spacetime.)

      Where this concept would meet the challenge would be, if a mass on earth could drop down, from the surface of the earth, into a hypothetical shaft drilled down towards earth’s center.  Whereas almost ALL standard textbooks ASSUME that Earth has a constant density throughout (for ease of calculation purposes), THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

      On earth, since density increases substantially with depth, this causes gravity to slightly increase, not to decrease, until the Core-Mantle-Boundary (or CMB) is reached. From a gravity of about 9.81 m/sec² on the surface, gravity slowly increases to a value of 10.69 m/sec² at the core mantle boundary, at approximately 2,886 km below earth’s surface.  Only at the CMB, is gravity on earth at it’s MAXIMUM value.

      Even though density increases slightly after the CMB is reached, earth’s gravity then drops off to zero* at earth’s center.

      NOTE: (*The actual earth-moon system’s center orbit oscillates around this point at earth’s center, in the moon’s direction, but never actually resides at the center.  There are also other masses, like the sun’s and the other planets, which keeps the value for curvature somewhat above zero [for the value of gravity], at earth’s center.)

Will YOU “fall” for it?

      What is different this time, about this experiment, is not the result, from here, at the surface.  It is the idea that I will ask the home reader perform this experiment with a totally new idea, or objective, in mind.  What the C-R theory asks the home reader to keep-in-mind, or to notice, while performing this experiment, is that gravitational curvature causes an object [a ball] to always fall and accelerate towards the greatest curvature, rather than, to generically fall, with decreasing acceleration, all the way down, towards the center of the earth.   

      I will not disagree that, from “above earth’s surface”, the ball’s path coincides with, and always falls and accelerates, down, towards earth’s center.  

      What is in question here is: Is that acceleration to the center ALWAYS the case, or just an “accidental” coincidence when the experiment is only performed from earth’s surface?

      While the C-R theory agrees that Newton was brilliant, and his theory of how gravity works has been enormously successful when measured from above earth, there still arises the question, was it right in ALL cases? Einstein replaced certain portions of our understanding of Newton’s gravity with his theories of special, then general relativity, and stated that curvature tells the mass how to move.

      What was never considered, back then, was this.  If one checks a reliable source, the C.R.C. Manual, (not related to the C-R theory), one will find that gravity actually INCREASES as one goes towards earth’s center, at least until we drop down to the Core Mantle Boundary (or CMB).

      NOTE: Almost all high school and college textbooks oversimplify this fact, and use, as their only example, an earth with averaged-out density overall.

      NOTE II: Earth’s density does not just increase linearly, but does so in a stair-step fashion, with increasing regions of density, from the crust, the mantle, and the outer core, then the inner core, further inside.

      Whereas most textbooks “pretend” that earth’s gravity drops off and decreases smoothly and linearly to zero at earth’s center, in reality, gravity increases slowly, below earth’s surface.

      What the C-R theory claims is: that as the gravity (or curvature) increases, that is really the ONLY reason that causes the ball to continue to fall.  Only the C-R theory claims that, if the gravity (as curvature) did not increase, the ball would be stuck at the surface, where gravity “should have been the greatest strength”-by the textbooks. [It is not so, again, because earth’s density increases substantially with depth.]

      What the C-R theory wants the home-experimenter to keep in mind, and to recite, while performing this experiment is: “When we throw the ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature [or strength], the ball loves to visit, but cannot remain, and it is always compelled to return back into GREATER curvature”.  

      The real question that the C-R theory wants the home-reader to address is: Will this same situation, faced “down there” also be the case, once the ball finally arrives at the place of maximum curvature, (at the CMB)? What to consider is: What do the results of your experiment suggest? How many times have you performed this experiment, and how many times has the ball always “fallen” back into greater curvature?

      If you are totally honest with yourself, this experiment demonstrates (but does not prove, by itself), that curvature causes a ball to fall to the greatest curvature, every time this experiment is performed.

      What the C-R theory is suggesting is that nature has already given us humans, the answer, in plain sight, for anyone to test-out.  If you do not believe me, that is OK, what I ask is will you believe the results from your experiment? Even if you are not necessarily “won-over” right away, what I am attempting to show YOU is that there IS, BECAUSE OF YOUR EXPERIMENT, a valid scientific reason to question the “standard answer”, using ONLY the results of this experiment.

      NOTE: At only the CMB, curvature THERE is maximum.  If you were to throw the ball UP, towards the surface of the earth, you would be throwing the ball back into a lesser curvature.  HOWEVER, that situation ALSO occurs now if you were to throw the ball down, towards the center of the earth.  In that situation, again, since the curvature ALSO decreases going towards the center, WILL the ball AGAIN return back to the maximum curvature? This is the dilemma!!!

      NOTE: “Humanity has NEVER tested the situation of tossing a ball into a lesser gravitational curvature from BELOW earth’s surface.” That I know of, only the C-R theory has “mentally tested” this idea using a new understanding of “gravity’s cause”, straight from nature, by applying previous results directly from this simple experiment. As far as I know, only the C-R theory predicts that this result will occur in this particular situation.

      If you still stick to the strict, Newtonian view, I would humbly ask the home reader to re-perform this experiment over and over, but this time, with a more open mind.

      If you cannot accept it, for now, that is expected.  If you believe you already KNOW the answer, without having ever actually tested the result, “down there”, then you have missed the entire point of this exercise.

      NOTE: Both of the theories would rule-out that the ball returns back to the earth’s surface on it’s own accord.

      What the C-R theory is attempting to do is to show the observant reader, for the first-time, an experimental reason to question the “standard wisdom”.

      Another area where the entire world might have been fooled is The Big Bang.  The C-R theory claims that we live inside a closed universe, which is exactly filled, sealed-off, perfectly stable, and is not expanding.  I will not fully go into all those areas, but to mention that they are covered in either of the C-R theories.  

      Briefly, I will mention that the C-R theory claims that the redshifts found in this universe, “way out there”, are almost all gravitationally caused.  Just last year, scientists placed an atomic clock about 1 foot (or 33 cm) higher than a second atomic clock, which had been synchronized.  The clock that was slightly-lifted ran faster, by an incredibly small amount of time, which science can now accurately measure.

      What the C-R theory claims is that something similar, but far more drastic, takes place inside this closed universe.  Not only does time slow down to almost a crawl in all directions, but there is one (and only one region), called “The Great Attractor”, where time runs faster than here on earth (as is evidenced by it’s limited blueshift).

      The simplest possible explanation for both readings, simultaneously, of redshift at a distance, everywhere around, and blueshift in only one region, is that both are caused by differing levels of curvature (acting as gravity). (See the C-R theory section __ for a fuller explanation, and illustrated diagrams.)

DOES the 2.7K temperature background radiation “really prove” the Big Bang?

      The C-R theory also claims that the 2.7 K radiation is not proof of a big bang, anymore than when I pull an ice-cube out of my refrigerator “proves” that a blast-furnace exists.  The 2.7K is not a leftover, but simply the cooled-down collective radiation, time-slowed-down, from the outermost portions of our universe.  

      All one needs to do is wait a billion years, and see that there is no additional cooling-down of the 2.7K with time.  A second method is to travel to other far-away locations, elsewhere, inside this universe, and measure “there”, to see if the “2.7 K background” there has some other value “there”, (while we on earth still measure it as 2.7K).

      While neither of the above two methods are likely to yield results quickly enough to settle the argument soon, yet other methods might be found where we can tell, from here on earth, what those readings would be “there”, somewhere else.  What I am trying to suggest is that science “kind-of rolled-over and ignored the real evidence” against the standard hypothesis, and kind-of railroaded the conclusions into a group-consensus, where dissent is not tolerated, much less cherished.

      The standard view is that the case is so proven, via. self-fulfilling logic, none but a “fool” would disagree with it.  What has been missed is: The whole logic is a flimsy “house of cards”, where any kink in the evidence, anywhere, will collapse the whole structure in on itself.

EXPANDING and ACCELERATING, or STATIC.

      The last major area where the whole scientific world has probably been fooled is when they conclude that the expansion of this universe is accelerating, and not slowing-down.  Part of the problem is that earth’s scientists have corrected their observed data BEFORE they draw their conclusions from it, BASED-ON the expectations that, time-wise, everywhere else in this universe, time runs at the EXACT-SAME rate as right here on earth.  The small problem is: The visual evidence indicates otherwise.

      I have argued elsewhere in the C-R theory as to why this simple acceptance of: “Everywhere else is IDENTICAL to earth conditions, time-wise, courtesy of the theory of relativity.”, is AN UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION.

      I have enjoyed quoting the Chico Marx line: “Who you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?”, to ridicule science for first throwing away the OBSERVED visual evidence that far-off regions of our universe are NOT LIKE Earth at all, but are slowed-down considerably.  AFTER CORRECTING the OBSERVED DATA, [because they believed the premise from the theory of relativity, rather than accepting THEIR own OBSERVED DATA, or their actual results], science then wonders why this universe does not make proper sense to them.

      DOES anyone else out there have a problem with the scenario described above? Is it FAIR {or GOOD science?} to correct the OBSERVED and MEASURED data FIRST, THEN, afterward, derive your conclusions from that pre-corrected data, and be baffled with the results?

      Is it any wonder that the conclusions do not make good sense?

WHAT ABOUT DARK MATTER?

      I have blogged about both dark matter and dark energy in recent blogs, so I will not

cover those too extensively here, but I would like to briefly mention those topics for new visitors.  The C-R theory maintains that dark matter, which is supposed to be the missing ingredient that causes galaxies to “hold-together”, might be easily explained by the much simpler notion that electricity and magnetic fields are much more prevalent in galaxies than standard science suspects.  Instead of requiring 90% of the mass of the galaxy to be dark matter, we merely need to look-for evidence of electromagnetic activity occurring within galaxies.  After all, science KNOWS about magnetism, and how it affects matter.

      Rather than invoking a “mysterious” dark matter, why not consider the more reasonable and probable cause of electromagnetic fields, shaping, driving, and holding-together the galaxies, and driving the spiral arms to twist.

      If we were to start searching close-to-home, in our own solar system, can we find evidence of enormous quantities of stray electrical charges, huge electrical fields, large magnetic fields, or electrical activity? Just about everywhere we look, evidence is stuffed into nooks and crannies, in existing reports, if we just read about them.

      Without belaboring the point, the huge current flowing between Jupiter and Io, of up to 5 million amps at a cyclic peak, is one such occurrence.  Auroral activity on every planet, and many moons suggests more stray electrical charges.  Lightning and thunderstorms are such prominent features of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, Venus, and some moons, that electrical activities there cannot be denied.

      If one checks out our sun’s corona, and the areas around sunspots, the level of magnetic fields and intense energies of solar flares, solar prominences, and coronal mass ejections, evidence something magnetic exists there is abundant here too.

      Additionally, the biggest anomaly virtually IGNORED by science is the double-negative ionization of ALL of the hydrogen atoms in our sun’s photosphere.  Virtually EVERY hydrogen atom there HAS TWO ELECTRONS, despite it’s over 6,000° C, or almost 10,000°F temperature, suggests the biggest clue possible has been completely ignored.

      Given that the solar wind accelerates after it leaves the sun’s vicinity seems to suggest some anomalous electrical charge behavior, too.

      If we search for evidence of electromagnetic activity outside our solar system, huge radio wave emissions, X-rays, gamma rays, polarized light, and high energy cosmic rays might almost be a walking billboard, advertising electrical activity, but you would never know it reading the standard accounts.

      After that we have enormous clouds of ionized radicals (ions as part of chemical structures with either positive or negative ions), 7 million degree warm lobes above and below our galaxies central massive Black-Hole ^C-R, stretching for 25,000 light years each way, containing something like 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy.

      I have read elsewhere that the outer 1/5 of this universe’s hydrogen is ALL ionized, which might also give one strong clues as to the amount of electrical activity happening way-out-there.

      In short, the home reader is invited to search for themselves to find similar reports that mention the presence of any type of electromagnetic activity, and see if I am simply making it up, or if something indeed is going on “out there”.

Summing it all up:

      There are times where I might apologize for using humor to try to get my points across, in the Comedy-Recycling theory, because I thought that might get more people to read it (voluntarily) and get them to enjoy it, if I did too.  

      I have since also authored the Completely Recycling theory, for the benefit of our international readers, with much of the original humor eliminated.  It has succeeded in being downloaded by more people, more often, from around the world, than is the original Comedy-Recycling theory.

      I knew the “experts” were too set in their ways, and the scope of my ideas was too radical for the current generation to fully accept.  I have tried to provide these ideas, free of charge, to anyone who will take the time to look at them.  I will try to seriously suggest these alternatives to the current champ, “The Big Bang” theory, and show why these answers are better, simpler, more straightforward, and less contrived.

      There are other areas, like using Black-Holes ^C-R to recycle matter and energy, where the ideas are profound, simple, and easily testable, to a remarkable degree.  I invite every new reader to ask if these ideas are not easier for you to understand, and make more sense, than the competition.

      To those critics who say that the Comedy-Recycling theory is one of the worst named theories in all of science, that is your right to think-so.  I claim that overall, there are so many new ideas in here, that the theory would have been just-as-rejected anyway, in virtually any standard forum, even if it had been conventionally named.

      While I was first writing this paragraph, the home-page visitor count was nearing our 42,000^th visitor. (P.S., it did reach that number a while ago.) Downloading bandwidth is up considerably, compared to earlier years.  Recently, we have set new records for weekly incoming visitor numbers.  We also do well with returning visitors, re-visiting bookmarked pages, and reading more topics that this theory has to offer.

      I do apologize for my unorthodox methods, but these results speak for themselves. “Someone” is looking at this theory, and some are returning multiple times.  These ideas are not expressed elsewhere.  I offer them for your consideration, and to get you to try to think in new patterns.  I am trying to point-out commonalities in observations that science has mostly missed, or worse-yet, deliberately ignored.

      Was science looking for something “too complicated” {formula-wise}, so that they ignored some simpler alternatives? I am suggesting that the reader look at known items in a new way, and learn to recognize new patterns, if indeed they are there.  Is our universe far more dynamic, because of the electrical, magnetic, polarized, and basic, charge-separating activity, than anyone-else in mainstream science suspects?

      If I play the Fool, and I am wrong, then I will be another in a long line of genuinely convinced, but still sincerely wrong individuals.  If I play the Fool, by conventional wisdom, but I end-up being right in any of these new areas (or all of them), then that IS the type of Fool I would rather be this April.

      If the scientific world has indeed been April-Fooled by nature in at least 3 key areas, as the C-R theory suspects, for all these many years, I would rather that someone else had the privilege to point-it-out to them.  Since I could find no-one else who also thought-so, the lot fell to me.  If any of the C-R theory’s regular readers become convinced-enough, I would appreciate their extra help in pointing-out the possible errors to the rest of the world.  By gently mentioning all of these areas to explore, I hope to assist others to travel the same pathways, and re-consider what they have been taught.

      It is always possible that there are many more, simple, new ideas hidden within the C-R theories, that I have not-yet realized.  I invite all home-readers to see if they can discover obvious items (to you, at home), that I have not yet discovered.

      Look at the newest scientific papers and reports, and look for those type-of patterns that only the C-R theory pathways could appreciate.  If you find more, independent of my suggesting where to look, post your results somewhere, and look for many more items.

      If you do happen to find the C-R theory ideas personally useful, please let others know, too.  If you can think of easier or quicker ways to test any of the main ideas, let that be known, too.  If you find no evidence supporting the C-R theory ideas, keep looking for my newest blogs, and I will try to keep you informed with things I uncover for likely areas to notice relevant phenomenon.

      Whatever topic(s) I chose for the next blog, I will try to return back to the more serious conventional subjects, and also cover more of my older ideas with even newer insights from these last few years, rather than by adding more humor.

      One of my highest goals is to be recognized by some credible mainstream source(es) and having some of the C-R theory ideas taken seriously, and discussed and considered as such.  I would also like to find those web-sites where the C-R theory ideas have been discussed, but the search engines rank too low to be listed in a common web-search.

      Thank you again for visiting, and I look forward to my next opportunity to create these blog sessions, where I can further address some of the possible merits from the C-R theory ideas.  Sincere questions and concerns can be addressed using the Contact the Author block on the homepage at the top.

Jerry A. Reynard To be posted on or just before April 1, 2012

 

April Fool’s Day blog

      I would like to welcome our 42,000^th visitor, and by the time this blog is posted, we should be midway to our 43,000^th visitor.  I appreciate your taking the time to check out the ideas at this web-site, and I hope you get some useful ideas and concepts here that cannot be obtained anywhere else.

      Even though the C-R theory has had great success lately in attracting readers from an international perspective, the front portion of this blog will be devoted to a return to my “first love”, or the humorous part of the Comedy-Recycling theory.  The later portion of the blog will be addressing whether most of world, and science too, has already been “April-Fooled” for the last 80-90-some years.

[This next part, the April-Fool’s Day part of this blog, is a science-based humor section could be skipped by international readers.  NOTE: This section below IS NOT intended for literal translation into other languages, and is based on common (American) English-language and word-usage items.]

 {International readers may resume reading after the partial line of asterisks, at the heading: A New Take on an old experiment}

 

The Humorous part of the Blog:

      How is the Schwarzschild radius similar to a good baseball strikeout pitch?

The first is a “throne for a curve” ball, and the second is thrown for a curveball.

      Biochem lab joke:

Q:  What is red and green and goes around and around at 100 MPH?

A:   A frog in a blender.

Q: What has 18 arms, 18 legs, catches flies and weighs a billion solar masses?

A: A supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R with its own baseball team.

      If there ever was a C-R theory fan-club, what could be it’s motto?

We really “dig” Black-Holes ^C-R!!!

      Imponderable question of the day: Will a helium-filled balloon still float in the vacuum of space?

Q:  What would the C-R theory’s critics say was the biggest difference between the C-R theory’s author, and a navy ship after a fiery chili dinner?

A:   The critics would say: “The navy ship should wait a day before they need to have their “head” examined.”

      The “less than intelligent man” went into a hardware store and asked the nearest sales clerk for her advice as to which measuring-tape model would be the best one for him to buy so he could measure the length of a day.  He said that she simply talked him out of the purchase, because she said he was just too “week-minded” to use any of their store’s models to measure the length of a day, and thus, his measured results would have to be divided by 7 to determine it correctly.

      [Joke multiplier: I could pun: The same man also said, he “longed” for the good old days, when math was simpler, before this new math stuff took over.]

Q: Why do freed-electrons leave their respective Black-Holes ^C-R in two near-light-speed jets?

A: Because propeller planes would simply take too long (and propellers will not fly at all in a vacuum).

A riddle:

Why did the “less than intelligent” person use miles of rope to wrap-around a small lake several times?

Because he wanted to create a tied-pool.

A Magic Question?

Q: How do you make our entire universe “just disappear”?

A: Believe in the Big Bang, and it already did it for you (before its beginning).

Q: Why is mainstream science like a cosmologist stuck inside a Black-Hole ^C-R?

A: Because both of them are still “left in the dark” about Black-Holes ^C-R.

Why is a Black-Hole’s ^C-R Neutral Zone ^C-R like a story by Edgar Allen Poe?

A: They are both excellent “tales of whoa/tales of woe”!!

Redefinition of a geography axiom: At most modern shopping malls now, the shortest distance between two points is at least twice as long as it should be.

Photographers always take a picture of my bad side.  

A colleague: Oh, and which side is your bad side?

My outside.

Good advice from the Jester: It is better to keep your mouth shut, and let people suspect you are a fool, than to open your mouth, and confirm their suspicions.

If a stopped clock is right twice a day, how does it know?

 

If a clock could talk, what would it tell time?

...... {Chose one}:

A: You said the same things yesterday, verbatim!!

B: That wasn’t what you told me a minute ago.

C: You may be right, but it still ticks me off.

D: I’d like a second’s opinion.

Jester: My favorite days of the workweek are the ones that are already over.

Imponderable Question (for kids to think about at your leisure):

Does rain get yelled-at by it’s mom when it goes outside to play, and gets wet?

What is the Jester’s favorite movie title?

Work is a Four Letter Word (NOTE: A relatively obscure British satire film from the ‘60's)

What is the Jester’s favorite Bob Hope movie line?

“When it comes to facing danger, brave men run in my family.”

The Jester’s favorite book joke:

“Beside a dog, a book is a man’s best friend.  Inside a dog, it’s too dark to read.” ...Groucho Marx

A college question:

What happens if you flunked the test of time?

Jester: If we are talking-about humor, the salary that I earn by laying here on the top of the home page as the C-R theory’s icon is a big joke, but, not one that’s funny to me.

A Riddle for C-R theory understanders, only:

[NOTICE: This riddle is only funny if you understand the C-R theory:]

Riddle: What has 14,000,000,000 arms and 14,000,000,000 legs, and sleeps inside a Black-Hole ^C-R every night?

A: [All-of] Humanity!!

[Jester speaking]: Riddle: Why am I (the Jester) almost-like a Black-Hole ^C-R?

A: Because we each specialize ingesting (a pun on: in jesting).

Pun: A Black-Hole ^C-R is a mass-sieve body. (Pun on: massive)

      The Jester’s Fish Story (especially for this April Fool’s Day blog)

      The Jester just told me about this fishy encounter, a tale from some time ago, on another, earlier, April Fool’s Day, also occurring in a year, after a leap year’s day.

      The Jester always takes-off every April-Fool’s Day, because it is his favorite day of the year.  He decided to have some fun, and take a vacation day, and do some early-morning fishing at the same time.  The Jester noticed that he could not find his fishing hooks, so he decided he would be lazy and just tie the worm to the fishing line.  

      Being lazier still, the Jester also decided, rather than to have to awake even earlier on his day off, just to dig-up some worms, he would simply break-off a few worm-sized tree-branch twigs now, then spray paint them in a worm-like color.  After the paint dried, the Jester then figured he could just coat the fake “worm” with some glue on that morning, so that the fish would just stick to the fake worm when they came-by to check it out, and save the Jester from needing to go buy new fish-hooks.

      Now the smarter home-reader out there would say, but hey, when the glue on the fake worm gets wet, the glue will dissolve or get waterlogged.  Well, in working for the C-R theory, the Jester is a pretty smart fellow, so he also figured this out, too, so he came equipped with a can of waterproofing spray.  He thought he would just spray the fake worm with waterproofing, after he applied the glue, so that the glue would not get waterlogged.

      When the morning to fish arose, the Jester was prepared, and had his fake worms ready, painted, dried, coated with fresh, wet glue, and properly waterproofed.  He tied the fake worms to the fishing line, threw them in, and started waiting for the fish to notice them.  He hoped the fish would come close enough, and just get stuck to the glue on the fake worms.

      Now I am no good judge of the Jester’s plan, since I am not a fisherman, and I cannot say that the plan could have ever worked properly, but here is the report, straight from the Jester, just as he told me.

      The smaller fish were not that interested, so they just swam by without giving the fake worm much notice.  After ten minutes or so, the slightly larger fish, those who had been around for at least a year or two, swam by and came in for a closer look, but they were not that interested, either.

      Within a half hour or so, the larger fish, those that had been around for many years, finally got curious, and started coming-by.  I believe they were far too wise to fall for the Jester’s tricks, but that’s when a funny thing happened.  

      The older and larger fish just started to find this extremely funny.  They just could not believe that this stupid human, (dressed in his full-color Jester’s regalia, too), had been foolish enough to think they would fall for his plan.

      The older fish had been around long enough, and they knew how the fishing “game” was supposed to be played.  Some of them had probably been caught and released several times, before.

      I suspect that the older, wiser fish could even read a little-bit of some of our human minds, just enough to know what was expected of them, and that is how they had lived so long, without getting caught, and gotten as large as they were.

      Anyway, these older fish just found this fake worm, tied on to the line, coated with worm-colored paint and wet glue, then waterproofed, just so darned funny that they could not contain themselves without giggling.  After the bigger fish all started laughing, the smaller ones finally caught-on to the joke, too, and joined-in.

      From the beginning of time, there probably have not been more than a dozen cases of fish ever laughing so hard before (or since).  None of these encounters have ever been officially recorded for history, so this blog is the very first written account I can find.

      Even though they did not lunge at the fake worm, and they were never in danger of getting caught, as the Jester had planned, the larger fish just lingered-around and started laughing so hard that this created a noticeable disturbance on the surface of the water.  All-of the swirls and the turbulence from the laughing fish stirred-up the water, almost like a bubble bath.  

      Well, the Jester noticed the gathering of these huge fish down there, and he thrust-in his fishing net right behind them.  Normally, these fish would dart away as soon as they heard the net splash, but they were all just rolling around in a giggle-fit, and half-paralyzed with unstoppable, contagious laughter. [And this danger from the net was unrecognized by these fish, who had never been so thoroughly entertained before.]

      When he lifted the net, the Jester found at least 3 huge fish gasping for their gill-fulls of water, but in our air, and all emitted that very distinctive “fish belly-laugh” sound. Now, being the consummate, professional entertainer that he was, the Jester noticed that those fish were actually laughing “convulsively-hard”, and not just gasping for oxygen, as the normal fish-catch would do.

      Needless to say, even though they were laughing mostly at his set-up, and not at a true punch-line, which is a comedian’s “adrenaline rush”, the Jester did not have the heart to eat them.  Even though they would have been a prized catch, and they were some pretty-tasty types of fish, according to the Jester, they were also one of the better audiences of hearty-laughers he had ever had.  

      A professional Jester recognizes any appreciative crowd, and takes a liking to them, {even though they could have been his dinner, instead}, and he simply could not treat them that badly, by eating them.

      So the Jester went hungry that morning, and let those fish go back into their river-homes, also sternly warning them that he would not be quite so sentimental on another day, if he ever caught them again.  Ultimately, the Jester considered releasing them a small price to pay for the unique experience so few human fishermen have ever had, of finding the oldest and largest fish responding in a laughter-fit.

      Anyone who has ever seen fish in an aquarium knows they are a very tough crowd to amuse, even to make them crack a slight smile, much less get a good guffah out of them, is unlikely.  To have seen 3 of the biggest of them in such a high state of merriment is still one of the Jester’s most prized memories.

      When I mentioned to the Jester that I was looking for some new funny stuff for my April Fool’s day blog, he said that my request just reminded him of that situation, from at least one leap-years April-Fool’s Day ago, and he volunteered this account for your home-amusement.

      Now I know that some fishermen are prone to exaggerating their stories a bit, and as a professional comedian, too, the Jester might have been tempted to go beyond all reasonable expectations to stick with the pure, unadulterated truth. He swears that this is all true (but he did have both fingers crossed, and winked one-eye a couple times), so I will let the home reader decide on his veracity.

      While I do not profess the above story is necessarily, “science”, it is an April-Fool’s Day story with an April-Fool’s Day theme, as told by the C-R theory’s personal Jester, and it was funny, to me, so I threw this story into this special blog.  Nevertheless, it is a fitting fish-tale for April Fool’s Day, (and, perhaps prone to a fisherman’s embellishment), and thus, the Jester’s account of an earlier April-Fool’s Day fishing trip made it into my blog this year.

******************* International readers, resume here:

      A NEW TAKE ON AN OLD EXPERIMENT (that anyone can do at home) {for no money}

      I mentioned an experiment in last month’s blog, but I neglected to include it, or write about it, then.  By the great coincidence that both this experiment’s premise and conclusion would not be believed or taken seriously by science, why not also include it in this April Fool’s Day blog.  I include it, not because I can fool you with it now, but because I believe science has already been April-fooled for these many years, and not just one special day at a time, although I cannot prove it.

      While this experiment is not particularly difficult to perform successfully, and it is not necessary to precisely record all of the details, it is cheap, and easy to duplicate from any accessible location, anywhere in this world.  Technically, many of us have performed this experiment; but without considering a unique observation from the C-R theory, you may have missed the most important NEW idea on it, that I will cover now.  

      HINT: Nature may have hidden an important clue, right under our very noses, that almost no-one has noticed.

      Toss a ball (or some other object that can be safely tossed) into the air, in a safe manner, where it can be caught or recorded, over and over.

      Notice that the ball will travel skyward, slow-down, stop, then drop back down.  The observant reader will claim, what is so unique or revolutionary about that? That is what I will try to tell you, now.

      From the C-R theory’s point-of-view, it is gravitational curvature at work here, and not an actual “force” of gravity.  Let me try to explain the difference in reasoning.

      From the Newtonian way, gravity is somehow generated in response to the net-sum of the masses of two (or more) objects, as an action-at-a-distance.  As it has been tested, from above earth’s surface, Newton’s theory is solidly accepted, and held in high regard.

      Later, Einstein postulated that what we thought of as gravity, was an (after)effect of mass, called curvature, as a property of spacetime, which caused an effect on nearby masses, that made gravity work.  Where the C-R theory is attempting to advance the understanding, this “effect” of gravity, is actually caused locally, and it mostly affects each mass, locally.  This “effect” is not produced (or emitted) from far-away, and then radiated-in, say, like electromagnetism.  Curvature changes [or warps] the “carrying-capacity”, or the ability of matter to hold energy, allowing matter to store more (or absorb more) energy when lifted-up, and/or to liberate energy from a local mass, if that mass was allowed to fall an additional amount.

      A very important result from this new way of thinking is that the immediate effect [acting as gravity], directly changes the internal energy-worth of the local mass, at the closest location to where the energy was either added or freed-up.

      The biggest difference in this form of “gravity” is AFTER the masses’ energy has been lowered.  At the very extremes, when mass falls into a Black-Hole ^C-R, it’s energy is lowered as far as is physically possible, and it cannot ever go any lower. {That mass is in a state where it cannot lose more energy.} This change takes place immediately inside the Schwarzschild radius.  This confines the minimizing effect exclusively to this Neutral Zone ^C-R region.  [Essentially, like the outermost skin-layer of the Black-Hole ^C-R.]

      Two masses already inside two Black-Holes ^C-R are already at their lowest possible state, and each cannot be lowered any further by being “eaten-again” by the other. This also keeps one Black-Hole ^C-R from attracting (and eating) another Black-Hole ^C-R, a unique prediction that can only be recognized by using the C-R theory.

      At a lesser extreme, this means that a mass stored in less-extreme conditions will ALWAYS fall to the MAXIMUM amount of curvature (if possible), but NO FURTHER. (A mass cannot continue to “fall”, back into a more-energetic region, where curvature is less.  It must either acquire more energy to be allowed back into lesser curvature region, or stay put, in the most curved portion-of spacetime.)

      Where this concept would meet the challenge would be, if a mass on earth could drop down, from the surface of the earth, into a hypothetical shaft drilled down towards earth’s center.  Whereas almost ALL standard textbooks ASSUME that Earth has a constant density throughout (for ease of calculation purposes), THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

      On earth, since density increases substantially with depth, this causes gravity to slightly increase, not to decrease, until the Core-Mantle-Boundary (or CMB) is reached. From a gravity of about 9.81 m/sec² on the surface, gravity slowly increases to a value of 10.69 m/sec² at the core mantle boundary, at approximately 2,886 km below earth’s surface.  Only at the CMB, is gravity on earth at it’s MAXIMUM value.

      Even though density increases slightly after the CMB is reached, earth’s gravity then drops off to zero* at earth’s center.

      NOTE: (*The actual earth-moon system’s center orbit oscillates around this point at earth’s center, in the moon’s direction, but never actually resides at the center.  There are also other masses, like the sun’s and the other planets, which keeps the value for curvature somewhat above zero [for the value of gravity], at earth’s center.)

Will YOU “fall” for it?

      What is different this time, about this experiment, is not the result, from here, at the surface.  It is the idea that I will ask the home reader perform this experiment with a totally new idea, or objective, in mind.  What the C-R theory asks the home reader to keep-in-mind, or to notice, while performing this experiment, is that gravitational curvature causes an object [a ball] to always fall and accelerate towards the greatest curvature, rather than, to generically fall, with decreasing acceleration, all the way down, towards the center of the earth.   

      I will not disagree that, from “above earth’s surface”, the ball’s path coincides with, and always falls and accelerates, down, towards earth’s center.  

      What is in question here is: Is that acceleration to the center ALWAYS the case, or just an “accidental” coincidence when the experiment is only performed from earth’s surface?

      While the C-R theory agrees that Newton was brilliant, and his theory of how gravity works has been enormously successful when measured from above earth, there still arises the question, was it right in ALL cases? Einstein replaced certain portions of our understanding of Newton’s gravity with his theories of special, then general relativity, and stated that curvature tells the mass how to move.

      What was never considered, back then, was this.  If one checks a reliable source, the C.R.C. Manual, (not related to the C-R theory), one will find that gravity actually INCREASES as one goes towards earth’s center, at least until we drop down to the Core Mantle Boundary (or CMB).

      NOTE: Almost all high school and college textbooks oversimplify this fact, and use, as their only example, an earth with averaged-out density overall.

      NOTE II: Earth’s density does not just increase linearly, but does so in a stair-step fashion, with increasing regions of density, from the crust, the mantle, and the outer core, then the inner core, further inside.

      Whereas most textbooks “pretend” that earth’s gravity drops off and decreases smoothly and linearly to zero at earth’s center, in reality, gravity increases slowly, below earth’s surface.

      What the C-R theory claims is: that as the gravity (or curvature) increases, that is really the ONLY reason that causes the ball to continue to fall.  Only the C-R theory claims that, if the gravity (as curvature) did not increase, the ball would be stuck at the surface, where gravity “should have been the greatest strength”-by the textbooks. [It is not so, again, because earth’s density increases substantially with depth.]

      What the C-R theory wants the home-experimenter to keep in mind, and to recite, while performing this experiment is: “When we throw the ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature [or strength], the ball loves to visit, but cannot remain, and it is always compelled to return back into GREATER curvature”.  

      The real question that the C-R theory wants the home-reader to address is: Will this same situation, faced “down there” also be the case, once the ball finally arrives at the place of maximum curvature, (at the CMB)? What to consider is: What do the results of your experiment suggest? How many times have you performed this experiment, and how many times has the ball always “fallen” back into greater curvature?

      If you are totally honest with yourself, this experiment demonstrates (but does not prove, by itself), that curvature causes a ball to fall to the greatest curvature, every time this experiment is performed.

      What the C-R theory is suggesting is that nature has already given us humans, the answer, in plain sight, for anyone to test-out.  If you do not believe me, that is OK, what I ask is will you believe the results from your experiment? Even if you are not necessarily “won-over” right away, what I am attempting to show YOU is that there IS, BECAUSE OF YOUR EXPERIMENT, a valid scientific reason to question the “standard answer”, using ONLY the results of this experiment.

      NOTE: At only the CMB, curvature THERE is maximum.  If you were to throw the ball UP, towards the surface of the earth, you would be throwing the ball back into a lesser curvature.  HOWEVER, that situation ALSO occurs now if you were to throw the ball down, towards the center of the earth.  In that situation, again, since the curvature ALSO decreases going towards the center, WILL the ball AGAIN return back to the maximum curvature? This is the dilemma!!!

      NOTE: “Humanity has NEVER tested the situation of tossing a ball into a lesser gravitational curvature from BELOW earth’s surface.” That I know of, only the C-R theory has “mentally tested” this idea using a new understanding of “gravity’s cause”, straight from nature, by applying previous results directly from this simple experiment. As far as I know, only the C-R theory predicts that this result will occur in this particular situation.

      If you still stick to the strict, Newtonian view, I would humbly ask the home reader to re-perform this experiment over and over, but this time, with a more open mind.

      If you cannot accept it, for now, that is expected.  If you believe you already KNOW the answer, without having ever actually tested the result, “down there”, then you have missed the entire point of this exercise.

      NOTE: Both of the theories would rule-out that the ball returns back to the earth’s surface on it’s own accord.

      What the C-R theory is attempting to do is to show the observant reader, for the first-time, an experimental reason to question the “standard wisdom”.

      Another area where the entire world might have been fooled is The Big Bang.  The C-R theory claims that we live inside a closed universe, which is exactly filled, sealed-off, perfectly stable, and is not expanding.  I will not fully go into all those areas, but to mention that they are covered in either of the C-R theories.  

      Briefly, I will mention that the C-R theory claims that the redshifts found in this universe, “way out there”, are almost all gravitationally caused.  Just last year, scientists placed an atomic clock about 1 foot (or 33 cm) higher than a second atomic clock, which had been synchronized.  The clock that was slightly-lifted ran faster, by an incredibly small amount of time, which science can now accurately measure.

      What the C-R theory claims is that something similar, but far more drastic, takes place inside this closed universe.  Not only does time slow down to almost a crawl in all directions, but there is one (and only one region), called “The Great Attractor”, where time runs faster than here on earth (as is evidenced by it’s limited blueshift).

      The simplest possible explanation for both readings, simultaneously, of redshift at a distance, everywhere around, and blueshift in only one region, is that both are caused by differing levels of curvature (acting as gravity). (See the C-R theory section __ for a fuller explanation, and illustrated diagrams.)

DOES the 2.7K temperature background radiation “really prove” the Big Bang?

      The C-R theory also claims that the 2.7 K radiation is not proof of a big bang, anymore than when I pull an ice-cube out of my refrigerator “proves” that a blast-furnace exists.  The 2.7K is not a leftover, but simply the cooled-down collective radiation, time-slowed-down, from the outermost portions of our universe.  

      All one needs to do is wait a billion years, and see that there is no additional cooling-down of the 2.7K with time.  A second method is to travel to other far-away locations, elsewhere, inside this universe, and measure “there”, to see if the “2.7 K background” there has some other value “there”, (while we on earth still measure it as 2.7K).

      While neither of the above two methods are likely to yield results quickly enough to settle the argument soon, yet other methods might be found where we can tell, from here on earth, what those readings would be “there”, somewhere else.  What I am trying to suggest is that science “kind-of rolled-over and ignored the real evidence” against the standard hypothesis, and kind-of railroaded the conclusions into a group-consensus, where dissent is not tolerated, much less cherished.

      The standard view is that the case is so proven, via. self-fulfilling logic, none but a “fool” would disagree with it.  What has been missed is: The whole logic is a flimsy “house of cards”, where any kink in the evidence, anywhere, will collapse the whole structure in on itself.

EXPANDING and ACCELERATING, or STATIC.

      The last major area where the whole scientific world has probably been fooled is when they conclude that the expansion of this universe is accelerating, and not slowing-down.  Part of the problem is that earth’s scientists have corrected their observed data BEFORE they draw their conclusions from it, BASED-ON the expectations that, time-wise, everywhere else in this universe, time runs at the EXACT-SAME rate as right here on earth.  The small problem is: The visual evidence indicates otherwise.

      I have argued elsewhere in the C-R theory as to why this simple acceptance of: “Everywhere else is IDENTICAL to earth conditions, time-wise, courtesy of the theory of relativity.”, is AN UNJUSTIFIED ASSUMPTION.

      I have enjoyed quoting the Chico Marx line: “Who you gonna believe, me or your own two eyes?”, to ridicule science for first throwing away the OBSERVED visual evidence that far-off regions of our universe are NOT LIKE Earth at all, but are slowed-down considerably.  AFTER CORRECTING the OBSERVED DATA, [because they believed the premise from the theory of relativity, rather than accepting THEIR own OBSERVED DATA, or their actual results], science then wonders why this universe does not make proper sense to them.

      DOES anyone else out there have a problem with the scenario described above? Is it FAIR {or GOOD science?} to correct the OBSERVED and MEASURED data FIRST, THEN, afterward, derive your conclusions from that pre-corrected data, and be baffled with the results?

      Is it any wonder that the conclusions do not make good sense?

WHAT ABOUT DARK MATTER?

      I have blogged about both dark matter and dark energy in recent blogs, so I will not

cover those too extensively here, but I would like to briefly mention those topics for new visitors.  The C-R theory maintains that dark matter, which is supposed to be the missing ingredient that causes galaxies to “hold-together”, might be easily explained by the much simpler notion that electricity and magnetic fields are much more prevalent in galaxies than standard science suspects.  Instead of requiring 90% of the mass of the galaxy to be dark matter, we merely need to look-for evidence of electromagnetic activity occurring within galaxies.  After all, science KNOWS about magnetism, and how it affects matter.

      Rather than invoking a “mysterious” dark matter, why not consider the more reasonable and probable cause of electromagnetic fields, shaping, driving, and holding-together the galaxies, and driving the spiral arms to twist.

      If we were to start searching close-to-home, in our own solar system, can we find evidence of enormous quantities of stray electrical charges, huge electrical fields, large magnetic fields, or electrical activity? Just about everywhere we look, evidence is stuffed into nooks and crannies, in existing reports, if we just read about them.

      Without belaboring the point, the huge current flowing between Jupiter and Io, of up to 5 million amps at a cyclic peak, is one such occurrence.  Auroral activity on every planet, and many moons suggests more stray electrical charges.  Lightning and thunderstorms are such prominent features of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, Venus, and some moons, that electrical activities there cannot be denied.

      If one checks out our sun’s corona, and the areas around sunspots, the level of magnetic fields and intense energies of solar flares, solar prominences, and coronal mass ejections, evidence something magnetic exists there is abundant here too.

      Additionally, the biggest anomaly virtually IGNORED by science is the double-negative ionization of ALL of the hydrogen atoms in our sun’s photosphere.  Virtually EVERY hydrogen atom there HAS TWO ELECTRONS, despite it’s over 6,000° C, or almost 10,000°F temperature, suggests the biggest clue possible has been completely ignored.

      Given that the solar wind accelerates after it leaves the sun’s vicinity seems to suggest some anomalous electrical charge behavior, too.

      If we search for evidence of electromagnetic activity outside our solar system, huge radio wave emissions, X-rays, gamma rays, polarized light, and high energy cosmic rays might almost be a walking billboard, advertising electrical activity, but you would never know it reading the standard accounts.

      After that we have enormous clouds of ionized radicals (ions as part of chemical structures with either positive or negative ions), 7 million degree warm lobes above and below our galaxies central massive Black-Hole ^C-R, stretching for 25,000 light years each way, containing something like 100,000 supernova’s worth of energy.

      I have read elsewhere that the outer 1/5 of this universe’s hydrogen is ALL ionized, which might also give one strong clues as to the amount of electrical activity happening way-out-there.

      In short, the home reader is invited to search for themselves to find similar reports that mention the presence of any type of electromagnetic activity, and see if I am simply making it up, or if something indeed is going on “out there”.

Summing it all up:

      There are times where I might apologize for using humor to try to get my points across, in the Comedy-Recycling theory, because I thought that might get more people to read it (voluntarily) and get them to enjoy it, if I did too.  

      I have since also authored the Completely Recycling theory, for the benefit of our international readers, with much of the original humor eliminated.  It has succeeded in being downloaded by more people, more often, from around the world, than is the original Comedy-Recycling theory.

      I knew the “experts” were too set in their ways, and the scope of my ideas was too radical for the current generation to fully accept.  I have tried to provide these ideas, free of charge, to anyone who will take the time to look at them.  I will try to seriously suggest these alternatives to the current champ, “The Big Bang” theory, and show why these answers are better, simpler, more straightforward, and less contrived.

      There are other areas, like using Black-Holes ^C-R to recycle matter and energy, where the ideas are profound, simple, and easily testable, to a remarkable degree.  I invite every new reader to ask if these ideas are not easier for you to understand, and make more sense, than the competition.

      To those critics who say that the Comedy-Recycling theory is one of the worst named theories in all of science, that is your right to think-so.  I claim that overall, there are so many new ideas in here, that the theory would have been just-as-rejected anyway, in virtually any standard forum, even if it had been conventionally named.

      While I was first writing this paragraph, the home-page visitor count was nearing our 42,000^th visitor. (P.S., it did reach that number a while ago.) Downloading bandwidth is up considerably, compared to earlier years.  Recently, we have set new records for weekly incoming visitor numbers.  We also do well with returning visitors, re-visiting bookmarked pages, and reading more topics that this theory has to offer.

      I do apologize for my unorthodox methods, but these results speak for themselves. “Someone” is looking at this theory, and some are returning multiple times.  These ideas are not expressed elsewhere.  I offer them for your consideration, and to get you to try to think in new patterns.  I am trying to point-out commonalities in observations that science has mostly missed, or worse-yet, deliberately ignored.

      Was science looking for something “too complicated” {formula-wise}, so that they ignored some simpler alternatives? I am suggesting that the reader look at known items in a new way, and learn to recognize new patterns, if indeed they are there.  Is our universe far more dynamic, because of the electrical, magnetic, polarized, and basic, charge-separating activity, than anyone-else in mainstream science suspects?

      If I play the Fool, and I am wrong, then I will be another in a long line of genuinely convinced, but still sincerely wrong individuals.  If I play the Fool, by conventional wisdom, but I end-up being right in any of these new areas (or all of them), then that IS the type of Fool I would rather be this April.

      If the scientific world has indeed been April-Fooled by nature in at least 3 key areas, as the C-R theory suspects, for all these many years, I would rather that someone else had the privilege to point-it-out to them.  Since I could find no-one else who also thought-so, the lot fell to me.  If any of the C-R theory’s regular readers become convinced-enough, I would appreciate their extra help in pointing-out the possible errors to the rest of the world.  By gently mentioning all of these areas to explore, I hope to assist others to travel the same pathways, and re-consider what they have been taught.

      It is always possible that there are many more, simple, new ideas hidden within the C-R theories, that I have not-yet realized.  I invite all home-readers to see if they can discover obvious items (to you, at home), that I have not yet discovered.

      Look at the newest scientific papers and reports, and look for those type-of patterns that only the C-R theory pathways could appreciate.  If you find more, independent of my suggesting where to look, post your results somewhere, and look for many more items.

      If you do happen to find the C-R theory ideas personally useful, please let others know, too.  If you can think of easier or quicker ways to test any of the main ideas, let that be known, too.  If you find no evidence supporting the C-R theory ideas, keep looking for my newest blogs, and I will try to keep you informed with things I uncover for likely areas to notice relevant phenomenon.

      Whatever topic(s) I chose for the next blog, I will try to return back to the more serious conventional subjects, and also cover more of my older ideas with even newer insights from these last few years, rather than by adding more humor.

      One of my highest goals is to be recognized by some credible mainstream source(es) and having some of the C-R theory ideas taken seriously, and discussed and considered as such.  I would also like to find those web-sites where the C-R theory ideas have been discussed, but the search engines rank too low to be listed in a common web-search.

      Thank you again for visiting, and I look forward to my next opportunity to create these blog sessions, where I can further address some of the possible merits from the C-R theory ideas.  Sincere questions and concerns can be addressed using the Contact the Author block on the homepage at the top.

Jerry A. Reynard To be posted on or just before April 1, 2012