In the short video experiment on gravity, there were many fine points I was not able to cover within the short time-limit YouTube allows. This will cover those points, and cover items I have covered inside the C-R theory, but not yet in a blog form.

In a formal experiment, one would present a goal or an objective. We hope to ascertain the normal behavior of a tossed ball. NOTE: Whenever we toss a ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature, above the surface of the earth, the ball always returns, of it’s own accord, back into lesser curvature.

Although not mentioned in the experiment, the difference slightly above the earth is approximately 1 part in 10¹⁶ per meter either real-time energy gain, or gain of real-time. The C-R theory contends that this true energy gain is the real reason we experience gravity, and it is where the energy goes when we lift-up an item into a lesser gravitational field. A GPS satellite lifted 20,200 Km. will gain about 45 usec per day from sitting in a lesser gravitational field (it also loses about 7 usec per day from the increased speed, "falling" in earth’s gravitational field at orbital velocity). The net time-gain is about 38.5 usec per day.

In our experiment, we did not ask about time gains or trying to measure the interval difference. That would have been pointless, anyway, as the net difference was way too minuscule to measure. All we wished to establish was that, if the ball was tossed into lesser gravitational curvature, it would always return, of it’s own accord, back into a greater gravitational curvature. As many times as it was tossed, it did return successfully.

A little known fact (sometimes hard to find, also), is that gravitational curvature, or the strength of gravity, is not maximum at the surface of the earth, but increases, slowly, as one descends down, towards the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB). NOTE: This is where, using the standard Newtonian formula, G= M₁ M₂/r² would get one into trouble, unless one realized that earth’s density increases substantially with depth. (Even more unknown, the density increases more in localized "steps", rather than smoothly or linearly.) The density of seawater is about 1 g/cc, the density of soil is around 2.5 g/cc. Earth’s average density is almost 5.5 g/cc. At/or below the CMB, the density is estimated to be around 12-16 g/cc.

On the surface of the earth, the acceleration (or strength) is 9.81 m/sec², and it increases to about 10.69 m/sec² at 2,886 Km. down, at the CMB. That is rarely covered in most classes, and not generally known or talked-about. Proceeding further down, at the center, the strength of gravity is "0", or minimum. The standard Newtonian view is that acceleration continues increasing, all the way down, but at a slower and slower rate of increase.

This view comes from a neat little shortcut Newton used to calculate the strength of gravity. He "threw-away" the value of all mass above or outside-of the sphere as one proceeded towards the center, which allowed him to disregard the remaining mass.

A very good reason to suspect this mass-discarding technique might not be as valid as is conventionally thought-to-be is this: Imagine a ball, infinitely far away from the center of the earth’s mass. The net attraction to earth’s mass should be zero (or very close to zero). Now allow the attraction to be felt, and the ball accelerates towards earth at the standard Newtonian rate. Allow the ball to conveniently "fall" down a hollow shaft, towards the center of the earth, and continue accelerating. Conventional science believes that this acceleration will continue "all-the-way-down". Note: At the very center of earth’s mass, the ball has the SAME EXACT energy equivalence there that the ball had an infinite distance away from earth. (Yet science believes that energy was extracted out the whole way down!!!!) Something must be wrong with that picture, or gravity must be inconsistent. (HINT: Think of the M.C. Escher print, Waterfall, where the water continually flows in a loop, downhill, and continually powers a water-wheel in the process.)

The additional argument against the falling all the way to the center is simply the results of the experiment itself. If we carefully noted our results, in our experiment, the ball never did fall towards lesser curvature. Whenever the ball entered lesser curvature, it always returned on it’s own back towards greater curvature. Nature has "already" announced her hand, so to speak, and shown everyone her cards. Certainly, if this was a legal proceeding, the very notion of a "precedent" would almost mandate one and only one course of action.

The fact that most of earth’s scientists, geologists, physicists, mathematicians, and others who should know better have all signed-on for the "all-the-way-to-the-center" scenario will not dissuade "nature" from falling to MAXIMUM curvature, as shown in YOUR home experiment, and remaining there.

I strongly suspect that the mainstream of science will disregard the experiment as not relevant, or as not similar. THAT is why I designed this experiment with minimum equipment required, and with minimum expenses incurred, and presented it, as-is, to YOU, the home viewer. I don’t mind that you don’t believe me, I never ask you to believe me anywhere in this experiment. ALL I ask is that you DO the experiment, and reach YOUR OWN conclusions, not MINE, and not someone else’s.

You either will believe YOUR own experimental results, or you will not! You will either accept the results as a preview of what is to be expected at the MAXIMUM gravitational curvature, or you will not. The C-R theory is either right, or it is not. The critical thing is, here is an experiment that YOU can do for yourself, and reach a conclusion 180° different from what the majority of "experts" believes (without ever testing it, by the way), simply because Newton came-up with a formula a few hundred years ago. It may have been one of the supreme intellectual feats of the last millennium.

The small problem is, it may be totally wrong!! The experiment YOU just did is the reason to check it a little bit more thoroughly than to state, I KNOW it does it, so why test it? Need I remind you, the ideas about gravity proposed by Newton have NEVER BEEN CHECKED more than 7 or 8 miles down (in the ocean depths) and have not been checked by any means anywhere below the earth’s crust. They HAVE been supposed as true, and believed as true, and imagined as true, but NOT tested as true. There is a big difference between what scientists sometimes suppose things will do, and what those things do when actually tested.

I am of course familiar with Newton’s equations, and I know that they do work rather well in most above-ground situations, until you deal with either very high speed sub-atomic particles, or test the gravity in far-away places, under extravagant conditions never encountered on earth. Then one must switch to relativity to understand some of the fine points. The C-R theory contends that, to truly understand our universe, one must add-in curvature to fully appreciate how gravity works, and to understand some aspects of "How gravity behaves".

From conventional theory, one should be extremely suspicious if a ball can "fall" from as far away from earth as one can get (almost an infinite distance away) where curvature is "0", then fall all the way to earth’s surface, where gravity is 9.81 m/sec², then fall all the way below earth, clear through to the center (if a hollow path can be created), and end-up at a location where gravitational curvature is also again the minimum, or "0", and extract energy (or acceleration) all the way down. If this is not a perfect picture of a Perpetual Motion Machine, of getting something from nothing, I don’t know what is. The C-R theory has no problem with the ball falling to MAXIMUM curvature, or the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB), where gravity should be approx. 10.69 m/sec², but the C- R theory also expects the increase in the acceleration, once under the surface, will be substantially less. After reaching the MAXIMUM, the acceleration ceases, and deceleration begins. The ball must start re-surrendering the kinetic energy (the acceleration) it picked-up while falling to that point, and start slowing-down, preparing to return back to it’s minimum energy position. I know this line of reasoning or thinking is not common, and has not been evaluated or tested, much less debated.

A goal of the C-R theory is to show that curvature plays a very important part in creating or causing the gravity we do see, and gravity cannot be fully understood without understanding the part that curvature plays. If this can be realized, or started, then the C- R theory will have played it’s part.

Current mainstream science pays curvature "lip service", by acknowledging it’s presence, but then dismisses it as an "annoyance", and tries to figure-out what really happens. The C-R theory maintains that only by understanding and appreciating curvature can one fully understand how gravity works. Without this consideration, one WILL reach wrong conclusions, and be fooled. The experiment we just did gives a clear result EVERY time. Will YOU learn-from-it? Will you simply accept the Newtonian ideas because they have always seemed reasonable (and natural), without ever being tested anywhere near earth’s center. (or anywhere UNDER the MAXIMUM curvature location)

I would say that some of the biggest names in science have either written articles, books, or presented scenarios in their magazines where a ball or a person was dropped down a theoretical shaft through earth’s center. {It is tempting to single them out, but they are in good company. I will save trying to embarrass them until later, after some apparent success.} In all of those cases, the ball or the person never had a hang-up, or a suspected problem at the CMB, but sailed (and accelerated) clear down to the center of the earth, just as the Newtonian idea would have one believe. Sometimes the caveats would be added that the earth’s density would be averaged, or smoothed-out. Even this does not let them off the hook, since, in that case, the maximum curvature WOULD be at the surface of the earth. Then, the ball would never fall, it would hover, at MAXIMUM curvature, around the inside top of the shaft. HINT: If you find that hard to believe, wait about 20 some years. When humans next return to the moon, and remain there long enough to perform some simple experiments, they might find out that the C-R theory is true, and that, on the moon, the maximum curvature IS at the surface. That means, if a hole or shaft was dug down deep, they could do a very simple drop test, and see if the ball would indeed drop down. I know of no other theory which claims that the ball would not fall down, there, to the bottom of the shaft or well. On the moon, the density does not increase substantially, (or more than quadruple) with depth. This means that within 20 or so years, the C-R theory might either be vindicated, or will still be laughed-at, but it can be tested in at least one simple part. UNNOTICED ANECDOTE: The Apollo astronauts had great problems with moon dust getting into nearly everything, and being pesky to get rid-of. Now I understand the reason. On the moon, gravity will not assist in shaking or pulling-loose the dust, downward. The gravitational curvature is already at the maximum value at the surface of the moon, and dust has no incentive to "fall". The simple static-cling, or van-der-waals forces will therefore dominate, and the dust cannot simply-be shaken off. (I did not recognize this back then, as it was well before I had come-up with the C-R theory. I did not even realize this until several years ago, and this blog is the first-time I remember commenting on this phenomenon specifically.)

I hope this blog helps the home viewer/reader a bit more to realize the real uniqueness of this experiment. It is one of the few, clear differences, where some part of the C-R theory can actually be put to the test, and demonstrate something not suspected by mainstream science. The experiment is far from actual proof, but it should serve as a warning that there may be much more complexity hidden in plain sight, and by realizing the situation (rather than studying the formulas), some new insight might be gained. If you do not accept the C-R theory’s ideas, and still cling to mainstream thinking, you have that right to think-so, and I respect one who accepts (with tenacity) that which they have been taught.

My personal view is, rather than "opposing" everyone, the C-R theory is "leading the pack" in recognition of curvature’s ability to explain what is going-on in this universe. Mainstream science will catch-on, and learn this within the next 50 years, but the process is slow, and they cling to their current ideas. Once they catch-up, they will then be able to contribute further to our mutual understanding. Up until then, it will be necessary to "endure" some ridicule and disbelief. Some may be well-earned, too, but it might take time to find-out the difference. I will try diligently to point-out the many areas where I believe the C-R theory has positive contributions to make, and where legitimate phenomenon occur that conventional theory does not explain well.

Thank you for reading this, and thanks for considering the C-R theory as the potential theory of your choice when choosing a theory YOU will use to understand our universe. If you choose not to accept it for now, you are better informed for the future, and you might remember the C-R theory’s ideas on what to look-for and what to consider. If that occurs, then I’ve made progress in helping you to come-around to the C- R theory way-of-thinking.

I do believe that, if I could get 100 people to take the C-R theory seriously, and to help understand it, to help look for new areas of relevance, to apply the C-R thinking to known phenomenon, progress will "snowball". Up until that time, I will try to use every trick at my disposal, and use everything I’ve learned to evaluate the C-R theory, and tout it’s usefulness. If I discover that I’m wrong, I will try to find some alternative theory (or combinations of them) that can also help enlighten us all. If I can inform you of new areas you’ve never noticed, I believe that will ultimately help us all.

If you do have difficulty in understanding any of these concepts, feel free to write in to me. I do expect readers will have difficulty, as I’m trying to explain new concepts using existing language, or without using too many exclusive new terms. I had to "invent" the terms for the two internal parts of the Black-Hole ^C-R, the Active Zone ^C-R and the Neutral Zone ^C-R, but other than that, I have tried using existing terms.

Feel free to take advantage of all of the free videos we’ve made available on YouTube. I have tried to keep them short and not too boring, but to informally "converse" with the viewer as I would with any individual I talked-to. I figure that if I keep explaining the same items in different ways, over and over, that some viewers will eventually catch-on, and start to understand what I’m saying. Even if you don’t understand my new ideas, I try to honestly share where I think current theories have weaknesses or flaws.

If you have returned to the C-R theory web-site over 5 times, I would like to talk to you. I want people to understand these items, and I want to help you learn the C-R theory way of thinking. If you choose to reject it afterwards, that is fine. What I am trying to avoid is those who reject these ideas before they hear about them. I do realize that the C-R theory ideas are different, and they have had to reject many beliefs common to most current theories. I try to explain WHY that was done, and what the benefits are of doing so.

If you have read the blog, but have not yet visited the C-R theory home page, please do so. I also have the Completely Recycling theory for international readers, who might not understand the more subtle intentional humor in the Comedy Recycling theory. I am working on a new revision to the Completely Recycling theory, and I hope to present that on-line a bit later this year. I now have a bank of over 20 on-line videos I can refer-to, to help illustrate the concepts I’m talking-about.

Last modified Sept. 7, 2009