The following letter refers to my most recent thoughts on the topic, a topic I have not recently covered in my blogs.

NOTE: The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle, by it’s very nature, is virtually non-testable “locally”, if light always adapts to “local” conditions. If light “elsewhere” adapts differently there, without going there, and measuring light “there”, could we find any difference. What I am trying to do is arrive at a real-world method to account-for why light “here” always measures at lightspeed.

      The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle is that light is the ultimate “wimp” (or conformer, yielder). Something “chameleon-like” or “octopus-like” in the nature of light, where it instantly adapts to local conditions, and never appears as a “foreigner” or a “visitor from far-away”. Because there is no experiment here on earth we can perform that measures light behavior at “The Great Attractor”, or near the outer edges of our universe {if our universe has outer edges, as the C-R theory supposes}, scientists have assumed that light always acts like it does right here, and that space is isotropic, or the same (identical) in all directions.

      What the C-R theory is trying to say, or bring into a forum for discussion is: If light instantly adapts to local conditions (or is instantly re-normalized), when we measure light arriving-in from far-off regions, it always changes-in to fit local conditions. The C-R theory is trying to state how light accomplished this, and what we might have-been missing in experiments done, to date.

NOTE: I had corresponded with this individual earlier, so I have edited this letter a bit more for home-readers who do not have as much of a C-R theory background, or who may not yet have read nearly as much about the C-R theory. I have added-in some additional material for clarification.

Dear {C-R theory responder},

       Thank you for again writing in to the C-R theory. Your question is reasonable, and I’ll try to explain it as I see it. The C-R theory ideas, as in the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, are not accepted by mainstream theories (yet), so the only place I know of to understand this concept is on the C-R theory website.

      I am trying to get the ideas out there, and discussed, and at least, state why I believe the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle might have some valid reasons. Mainstream theories will (grudgingly) accept the local, minor time-rate differences caused by "curvature" or the difference in the strength of gravity.

      One of the few clear references to this property is on sites covering the GPS satellites. By virtue of the satellite’s sitting some 20,200 Km. above earth’s surface, the satellite "gains" about 45 usec. per day (from the higher altitude). This is known-about, and mentioned in the web site. Even though this is the case, each GPS satellite is programmed (from the ground control stations) to “knowingly-miscount” this gain in time and provide a "corrected" time pulse, as if this time gain from gravity (and the time loss from orbiting {relativistically} at a faster speed, thus partially slowing-down time, of about 38.5 usec. per day) never occurred.

      What I’ve never seen covered, discussed, or noticed from anywhere else is: if this minuscule gain of time, [from this very small difference in gravitational curvature], results from a small decrease in “gravity (curvature)” that is KNOWN-ABOUT, this should imply that this same type-of time-gain also occurs everywhere else within this universe, in response to the overall, system-wide gravitational field.

      When Einstein formulated his theory of relativity, he "assumed" that there was no preferred reference frame, and that space was isotropic, or that it had exactly the same properties in all directions. What the C-R theory contends is that, if our universe is closed, sealed-off, or fully contained (inside an Active Zone ^C-R), this means that there MUST BE a (preferred) reference frame, with minimum (or zero) at the center, and with full curvature, complete in every direction, at the outside Schwarzschild radius. This {outside part-of the} Schwarzschild radius would be "invisible" to us, since we are stuck on the inside of the contained-volume, but the effects, with increasing redshift in every direction outward, have been seen.

      “Standard science” attributed the redshift to the Doppler shift from the assumed expansion after "The Big Bang", some 13.7 Billion years ago. The C-R theory says the red shift results from the simple properties of "changing curvature" from within an enclosed-volume of a closed-universe that is the “source” of the red shift we see. From this difference (mistake) results all the wild improbabilities that MUST-BE attributed to an expanding universe {with NO KNOWN extra source of energy to PAY-FOR it}.

      Now to start covering your question, the C-R theory believes that the photon of light is not changed (other than by being warped, bent, or focused into a new direction) by curvature. This means that the photon, after it is emitted, never changes until it is absorbed or re-emitted. It never gains (or loses) additional energy by "falling" in a gravitational field, and it never surrenders energy when climbing-up against a stronger gravitational field.

NOTE: This greatly simplifies our human understanding for how gravity works, and needs NO “outlandish” causative mechanism.

      What the C-R theory is saying is that the photons are "lazy" and do nothing from the influence of gravity (as curvature). What really happens is, as the photon moves from lesser curvature (higher-energy-worth) surroundings, into greater curvature (lesser energy-worth surroundings), the MEASURER (the scientist and his/her equipment) has changed.

      If you take your scientific instruments, and yourself, and climb up a one kilometer hill, you have added more energy to both your body-matter and to that of your equipment (that energy provided courtesy of your muscles, from the food you eat, or from your car, if you drove-up the hill). Both you, and your equipment have “changed” in that process, so later-on, when your equipment does not measure the photon as the same, science has "assumed" it was the photon (and not the measurer’s equipment) that did the actual changing.

      The C-R theory contends that there is no evidence where "light-speed"-light, when intersecting at any angles to another beam of light, changes that “other” light. What is the causative mechanism that "gravity" could use to change the energy-value of each and every photon, as those photons move up and down in changing gravity? Where does the energy come-from, and where then does it go to? {What gains the energy surrendered by a changed photon? Is there also a time-delay “paradox-interval” for that energy-gain, when NOTHING has yet acquired the photon’s energy after it has “surrendered it”.

      It is one thing to change energy values if both the gravity and the light were always travelling exactly parallel to each other for the whole interval of time, but this is not ever the case (or very rarely so).

       HINT: Test this idea and take two cheap LED laser-pointers, and play "Star-Wars" light-sabers with them. Notice that there is no noticeable effect from "colliding" the beams, from intersecting them, from fighting-with them. If this “direct collision” of lightbeams does not affect either one, what makes anyone (at home) think that much-weaker gravity (at a considerably weaker strength than a laser-light) will change the properties of a lightbeam from a brief crossing (or intersecting)?

       The simplest "causative" mechanism is for the photons to do nothing, and not to be changed at all. Thisw IS the option chosen by the C-R theory. It is the measurer that has changed, by "lugging" their equipment’s mass to a different-energy position. When this lugged equipment is again-used as the baseline-standard reference, it is THE REFERENCE STANDARD that has actually changed.

      In my most recent thinking, although I have not yet updated it on the web site, the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle would have light speed changing (or normalizing) “locally”, almost continually as it travelled across the universe. Light might not "wait" until it is intercepted, absorbed, or measured to change-back or conform to a "local-mode", but do so as it journeys around. {Especially light-speed-wise}

       In the current tradition of science, if something cannot be measured, it is said not to occur, or be worthy of consideration. Unfortunately, I do not know of any good way for us, while located here on earth, to measure or verify that light elsewhere in this universe "speeds-along" differently. Light, here in earth’s vicinity, will always normalize to our local velocity.

      I do not think there is any local "trick" we could engage to "fool" light into going at another speed, unless we could "locally adjust-our-spacetime", to change our local level of curvature, bending, or warping. Our current, human-level of technology, does not yet have that capability. Until or unless we could locally modify or modulate our curvature, above and beyond simply “climbing-up” or “falling-down”, we would have to travel elsewhere (and probably very far away, well beyond our solar system) to achieve a level of difference in lightspeed to be detectable and different.

      Current science says, if it cannot be measured (as different), then that difference is not real, or does not exist. It might as well be science fiction or imaginary. My understanding is that the small difference that does occur right here on earth, which is about 1 part in 10^16th per meter, is too small for us to detect.

      What the C-R theory must "hope-for" is that some human, someday, will invent a way to detect or change this curvature locally, and to modify it such that we could measure a lightspeed difference. Either that, or find a way to travel-away from earth much faster than light speed, so that we could go elsewhere, make measurements of changes elsewhere, and return-back quickly-enough to report the changes. Will that happen soon enough that mainstream science will accept that difference within the next 50 years? I highly doubt it.

       If “measurability” is necessary, then I would concede that the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle is probably not measurable-enough to accept within my lifetime. That written, many forecast things from theories that the inventors thought would never be detected have come to pass much sooner than expected, due to the immense creativity of other humans, who continually find new areas to manipulate. It is conceivable that some inventor will discover a new method or trick to change (warp) local curvature without having to travel elsewhere.

       In publishing the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, especially the part about stroboscopically "chopping-up" light in the near vacuum of space, vicinities near enough to earth now might not be different enough to measure a lightspeed difference from far-away photons. Additionally, since the furthest-out photons, from the farthest-away, are more likely to occur on a non-continuous, or random packet-by-random-packet mode, they may be too dim, or too occasional, to chop first, then measure.

       In my original thinking about the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, I imagined that photons from far away might still retain their "faster-than-light", or "slower-than-light" speed difference, at least until they passed-through some transparent medium, like glass or plastic, on an orbiting spacecraft above most of earth’s atmosphere. More recently, I am wondering if the photons more gradually adapt, to behave just as other local photons around them. Do the photons "sense" the local levels of curvature as they travel about? Do travelling photons ignore the level of background curvature that exists until the photon is absorbed? Then it is re-emitted at a lesser-but-local speed of light travelling in plastic or glass, or travelling through earth’s atmosphere, if it is measured here. Has that process, where we humans measure light in our labs, under our normal living conditions; inevitably changed light, the ultimate "conformer"?

       From a theory standpoint, it might have been better never to mention the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, except that the C-R theory "needs" the local difference in lightspeed as a way to account-for the energy difference, and to explain what is really happening, or how "gravity" works.

       This may be a very long answer to your shorter question, but I may post it in the blog section, too, and wanted to go over this specific area to highlight the difference expected by the C-R theory. I am now leaning more towards the answer that as every photon locally "passes-through" our earth-vicinity, it is locally adapted to conform to our local lightspeed. When I initially formulated the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle, I may have been more of the mindset that the photon would still possess the lightspeed-characteristics of the place where it originated-from, and only adapt locally AFTER being absorbed, or after passing through some clear but transparent item.

       The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle is kind-of an attempt to explain: How can lightspeed "change" or be different elsewhere, when we (here on earth) ALWAYS measure light from elsewhere at "our-local" lightspeed? The W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle is the C-R theory’s answer to: Why does this lightspeed difference NOT show-up when we try to measure it? As "individuals", we would like to believe that we would always stand for our own principles, regardless how others around us might adapt to blend in. The C-R theory tries to show that light, on the other hand, always "wimps-out" locally, gives-in to conformity, and tries to blend in.

       That I know-of, only the C-R theory NEEDS this lightspeed difference to "help-to" account-for the expected (and measured) energy difference seen in light coming from elsewhere. We get the energy gain (as a blueshift) in light coming from all portions of the volume around the "Great Attractor", but see an energy loss, as a redshift, for most other areas in the universe, increasing in value as one gets further-away from earth.

       Conventional theory believes this redshift is due to the "Hubble Constant" expanding the universe (with the local exception of the "Great Attractor"). Conventional science has trouble measuring this "Hubble Constant", or of getting a clear number that many methods of measurement can agree upon.

       The C-R theory maintains that this number is "fictional" or non existent, and that what we are seeing has nothing to do with the "preposterous idea" that our universe is expanding, accelerating, and probably "filling-with more mass" as it does so.

       The simplest way to account for ALL of the observations is that our universe is CLOSED, contained, but not isotropic (the same everywhere). Rather, our universe is non-uniform, but enclosed, and that the matter-inside varies it’s energy-value by position. I’ll refer to a one page pdf file showing this C-R theory view here. Just click on the PDF icon to display the file.

       (I will hope it works sending it in e-mail format, if not, let me know, and I’ll send you the PDF file as a separate attached file. I do not see the icon, so I'll just attach a PDF file. Open it when you come to this section.)

       I hope this helps you understand what I’m seeing when I describe how I believe our universe operates. I kind-of apologize that I do not know of any quick test we could do here on earth to determine if this is actually so. Someday, humans will either go elsewhere, or find others (civilizations or colonies) who have gone there. Until then, this is the best I can suggest.

       It is possible that some C-R theory blog reader might be smart-enough to devise some test that could prove (or demonstrate) that this might actually be the case. Since conventional theory does not believe anything like this exists, they certainly aren’t looking-for any way to test it.

       I always try to offer to any responders-in that I believe there may be huge amounts of undiscovered treasures (of the theoretical type, not of the financial type) still available. If the theory is true, I expect that there are many areas where I have not fully imagined all aspects that could be derived from the C-R theory ideas. I welcome additional thinkers, and I constantly hope that someone else can find things I have overlooked. There are always new phenomenon announced every month or week, and most of them seem to be very compatible with the C-R theory.

       If the C-R theory is right, I would expect that others, too, might find new aspects to it, and new applications where it can provide new insights. If it is wrong, there is a much lesser possibility that something significant can be added that would still be useful to mainstream science.

       If you had any comments on whether my previous letter was helpful to you, or cleared-up some of what I am trying to give insights into, that would be good. If you still feel confused, or need time to work-over the C-R theory ideas in your mind, I can certainly understand that, too.

       The ideas from the C-R theory are definitely different from that which is accepted by standard thinking. I know of no other areas where you can learn of these same thoughts or even find them discussed or considered. If you can accept them, and they are of use to you, and that helps you to understand more of what is occurring in our universe, that is my goal.

       If you cannot accept the C-R theory arguments for now, you are certainly not alone. I will continue to try to share these ideas with anyone who will listen, and hope that some will find these ideas of use to them.

       I appreciate the opportunity to try to share the C-R theory insights, and to help others to consider the ideas as viable. In the years that the C-R theory has been on-line, I have not had anyone else actually state that they had READ most of it. I expected an uphill struggle to get the C-R theory views across, and to get them taken seriously. If these views are right (or partly-so), they will eventually gain popularity. If I can convince some readers, on a one-by-one basis, that there is merit to these ideas, it helps me to repeat the process, over and over.

       I may post a good part of this letter into the blog section, as I do want the opportunity to discuss the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle again, and your question probably represents thoughts by others who have not yet written-in.

       I have read elsewhere, that there are something like a billion photons per every hadron (like the proton or neutron) in this universe. It seems nearly impossible to imagine that every photon travelling about is constantly re-adjusting it’s energy (and momentum, too) in every gravitational field it encounters. I am much more inclined, now, to understand the whole process better, using the C-R theory to state that the photon does not change as it travells, it is the observer who changes. THAT process I CAN understand, quite easily.

       Please write-in again if you have more areas where you would like clarification.

       Jerry Reynard

      NOTE: Since sending the letter, I found one article which was very interesting, about how the phenomonon known as stellar aberration. This linked article claimed that the amount of aberration varies because of a change in the speed of light, further away from earth. (Include link here)

      A different, C-R theory take is that it may be an indication of the actual “bending” of spacetime by curvature, known about (but not as curvature) around the 1890's. There is both a twice yearly aberration, and a lesser aberration twice each day. There is a very slight, but measurable change in the measured position of observed stars, technically, an amount that the telescope must be re-aimed to point exactly at the star.

      While I have read many articles on this phenomenon, almost every one treats it as a defect (or phenomenon) that changes the telescope, and not just the “measured position of the star, itself. It may be more-related to the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. principle discussed above, about the true nature of light, and how we actually measure it’s speed here on earth. Although the phenomenon is well-known, I believe there may be more “wiggle-room” on the nature of the actual cause of the change.

      One of the more interesting ironies from this is, there was a huge newspaper coverage of a brief “observed effect” from the 1919 eclipse expedition by Huntington, but the stellar aberration issue, which affected many more stars, and was known-about 30 years earlier was “ignored”.

      (I have simply read articles about the issue of stellar aberration, but I have never done first hand measurements of them on devices sensitive enough, or large enough, to make the measurements. This addition to the blog is just remarking about the true nature of the beast, so to speak.)

      New articles I’ve read recently,

The turntable experiments measuring light-speed/ether bias.

The LHC is gearing-up for a record energy-level in head to head particle collisions.

Astronomy magazine has an article about the connection between galaxies and supermassive Black-Holes ^C-R. A C-R theory spin would be that the central Black-Hole ^C-R is both the source of some-of the material from the galaxy, and the central stabilizer of the system. The age of most galaxies is many times older than current theories suspect.

      Astronomy magazine reports that scientists have recently measured the magnetic field of another sun-like star. This makes it likely that many more stars have properties very similar to our sun. If so, the C-R theory would conclude that most, if not all stars, may be powered by central internal Black-Holes ^C-R. That means that there is much more likely to be high-level electrical currents, magnetic fields, and electromagnetic interaction going-on within galaxies than mainstream science ever suspected.

      As I alluded-to in an earlier month’s blog, science is looking for dark energy as the cause of the galaxies holding-together, but they’re completely ignoring the indications that there are already enormous amounts of electromagnetic energy flowing-around inside galaxies. HINT: It is more-than-enough to easily explain why the galaxy’s stars don’t simply spin-off. No dark energy is ever needed, just observational science. Second hint: Since electromagnetic interactions are some 10^40th power stronger per atom for non-neutral atoms, you need far-fewer of them to be charged and achieve successful results.

Discover magazine (Issue__ ) had some articles on really wild thinking, stuff that should make the C-R theory seem much more reasonable in direct comparison.

HELP WANTED (Unpaid, but appreciated): The C-R theory is looking for interested home readers to advocate both the C-R theory ideas and challenges, or to at least, bring them up in discussion groups. I would like to get the C-R theory considered more seriously as an “alternative explanation” for some of the observations in this universe which do not seem to support current theories. All of the C-R theory downloads are free, so cost should not be an issue.

      Checking my web-site’s statistics, a little bit over ½ Gigabyte of material has been downloaded in the last 3 months. While that’s not huge by many sites’ standards, I do appreciate those who have downloaded and then looked-at the C-R theory’s materials. I don’t mind if you THEN reject the ideas, as long as you have been made aware of the C-R theory’s claims. If you read any articles in the upcoming years, you can’t help but be aware of the electrically-based ideas suggested by the C-R theory that have a way of being found, in abundance. I am counting on the long-term strategy that when science finally notices the enormous quantities of free electrons found coming from Black-Holes ^C-R, and put that together with the outrageous quantities of excess positive charges to be found in thousands-of-years-old supernova remnants, some of the C-R theory’s readers will put “two and two together”, and remember that they read about abundant electrical activity occurrences here, and almost nowhere else.