Many new items to blog about. I’d like to tout some of the newer videos that have recently come on-line. There should be 22 or more episodes, titles, or segments available for free viewing on YouTube. A brand-new segment on The Great Attractor should be available now. It concerns one of the real KEYS to understanding the C-R theory view. Conventional theory does not understand the significance of "The Great Attractor". After understanding gravitational curvature, the presence of "The Great Attractor" is the most important item in the universe to the Comedy-Recycling theory. If we did not see something like "The Great Attractor", the C-R theory might not have come into existence. By the C-R theory, the Great Attractor IS the center of this universe, no doubts about it. We KNOW this because the center of this universe MUST BE the most blue-shifted place we can find. This area IS running-faster than anywhere else, and for a very good reason. (see diagram)

By the C-R theory, every Black-Hole ^C-R has an exactly-critical inner-area, fully closed-off, which the C-R theory calls the Active Zone ^C-R. This is not quite as coincidental as it sounds, because one is necessary to contain enough mass, at the critical density, to close-off space(-time), and form the Black-Hole ^C-R. This takes the form of a "placeholder", or something to reference the value of time by. It is akin to the zeros (or nothings) that assign value to 10 or 100 or 1,000, or any higher whole number multiple of ten. The Active Zone ^C-R of a Black-Hole ^C-R could be likened to a (missing) hole of a doughnut or a bagel. If that "hole" was absent, you would have some other item.

If one considers geometry, we can see that at the center of the mass, The Active Zone ^C-R, the net contribution from the total mass of the sphere is zero (or minimum) at the exact center. To close-off the Active Zone ^C-R in every direction, we have exactly enough mass below every portion of the Schwarzschild radius (outer boundary) to do so. I have already covered, in other areas, why the inner area cannot collapse, and will allow interested or concerned readers to explore that topic further. For this segment, it should be enough to show that, at anywhere else but the center, time will be slowed-down in direct proportion to one’s location between the center, and the outer edges.

Interestingly, everything closer to the center will always appear blue-shifted, to anyone, anywhere else. Everything further out from the center will appear red-shifted to that viewer. If that viewer could vary their location, the colors, or amount of red-shifts and blue-shifts would vary. (See Voyage through the universe, for different views.)

Without being able to actively change our location significantly enough to notice a change (say, changing our location from inside the Milky-Way to somewhere in the Andromeda galaxy), we here on earth are "stuck" with a static view.

When viewing "The Great Attractor", if we look behind the center, the most blue-shifted point we can see, we have not detected a corresponding infall (blue-shift) coming from items behind the Great Attractor. Only from a C-R theory point-of-view, The Great Attractor makes great sense. It is simply running-faster than us, here on earth. Not only is it NOT attracting us, but since the entire region there is running-faster, or is less slowed-down, we would need to ACQUIRE additional energy (which we DO NOT now have), to be able to go there. In simpler words, THERE is the most "uphill" portion of this universe, gravitationally speaking. From a gravitational curvature view, we could NEVER fall towards there, and WE are NOT being attracted towards there, now. There is a blue-shift in that direction, but it is NOT a DOPPLER (caused) shift.

NOTE: With this arrangement, we also see increasing red-shift in ALL directions, clear out to the outer edges. Every direction looks identical, because in every direction, it is identical. No portion of this C-R theory type-of universe is ever "out-of-communication" with any other area. This type-of universe is perfectly stable, and cannot collapse (or expand). NOTE ALSO: Everything we see in this universe, phenomenon-wise, as is, is fully compatible with this type-of universe. Note, without violating Conservation of Energy continually, the C-R theory also does away with ALL 5 MAJOR anomalies needed by the Big Bang theory to implement it, or to make this universe (now) look like it does, from what IT WAS SUPPOSED to have STARTED-OFF FROM, (a singularity, at that), 13.7 billion years ago.

If the C-R theory were to invoke the principle of Occam’s razor, whereby the simplest theory, with the simplest explanation, and the FEWEST violations of common-sense triumphs; it should win, hands-down. I will leave such conclusions to you, the interested reader.

If I were to chart the comparative ridiculousness between the Comedy-Recycling theory, and the Big Bang theory (and/or it’s designated successors), again, I think the C-R theory wins.

The above represents the real importance of "The Great Attractor" to YOUR understanding of this universe. I do not consider the challenge so much, the C-R theory AGAINST the rest of the world, so much as it is, the C-R theory precedes (leads) the understanding (and appreciation) of phenomenon like "The Great Attractor", by 50 years or more.

To mine a metaphor, conventional theory has thrown out the baby (a.k.a., gravitational curvature), and is studying the bathwater. In short, their priorities and attention have been diverted from the real (or future) treasure. The Comedy-Recycling theory is trying to "gently" correct the situation, and attempts to point-out where one might look, what to look-for, what to notice, and what it’s significance is. Conventional theory has rejected, or minimized gravitational curvature as kind-of an interesting sideshow or a diversion. Instead, they study the existing, Newtonian-based equations, attempting to learn the secrets of gravity in the "old-fashioned" way. That is not always the wrong way to approach the subject, but in dealing with "singularities", relativistic-based equations have no real relevance.

The Comedy-Recycling theory has tried a new approach, and has attempted to understand "the situation", from a common-sense perspective. If you, the home reader, can appreciate this insight, and learn to apply it, you may come to discover and understand an entire layer of complexity, inter-relatedness, inter-weaving, sophistication, and practical re-use of KNOWN properties of matter. {Something akin to learning about the entire forest, for one who had been studying only the leaves, and was un-aware of their oversight.}

The above paragraph is either an overstatement, or wild imagining, or it is true, and available to anyone who will listen and learn. I do not expect many to partake, as they are too well "trained", and have learned their lessons all too well. My hope is, that some who read this are open-minded enough to do an honest, side-by-side comparison.

I have something-like 20 additional video segments and titles shot, but not yet edited and labeled. I have plans to shoot at least 25 more topics, and cover some of the above areas from a C-R theory view. I will try to show some linkages between the known properties of matter, and how the C-R theory claims those properties are used, exploited, and leveraged to accomplish amazing things.

I know of no other theory which seriously attempts a SIMPLE explanation of: How this universe recovers or restores and reverses entropy. The simple properties of the Neutral Zone ^C-R, the portion of the Black-Hole ^C-R where the escape velocity is ABOVE the speed-of-light, are so useful, and so practical, I cannot imagine a Creator or Master Designer would be unaware of the situation. The basic properties of matter just happen to exactly "fit-into" a scenario where the Black-Hole ^C-R takes full advantage of the difference in behavior between gravity (which does emanate from a Black-Hole ^C-R), and electromagnetism (heat, light, and accumulated electrical charge), which are trapped, inactivated, isolated, insulated, shut-down, turned-off and "looped-out of the plane", so to speak.

If the Active Zone ^C-R is the matter (real-time) equivalent to a digital "1", or ON, the Neutral Zone ^C-R represents the digital equivalent of a "Zero", or OFF. However "turned-off" the matter in the Neutral Zone ^C-R is, it cannot be turned-off any more. {An analogy would be, with a lamp circuit and one switch turned-off, would adding additional off-switches turn-off the lamp any further? No, but it might complicate restoring the circuit to activity.}

If any designers out there could design a more useful tool, to extract more from the properties of matter and energy, than are derived from the C-R theory "brand-name" Black-Hole ^C-R, please let me know. I would challenge you, if nature does not use something like this, then why not? The concept seems so useful, so practical, it almost has to be true.

HINT: Read ANY description, of ANY phenomenon, found in ANY direction in this universe, and ask yourself, does the C-R theory scenario describe it better than the Big Bang theory? Do we see enormous electrical currents, polarized light, and cosmic rays? (yes, everywhere) Is matter observed to be organized more compactly, with much more complexity, than should-have been allowed by the Big Bang theory, given the supposed time from the birth of the universe? (yes, often)

Are galaxies much more fully formed, with complex elements, than should be allowed given their seemingly "young" ages? (yes) Do supernova remnants keep on expanding, sometimes thousands (if not hundreds-of-thousands) of years after the explosion, when they should-have cooled off due to the amount of expansion they already have undergone? (yes)

Fitting the universe back into the supposed Big Bang places enormous constraints upon our universe, to have performed complex maneuvers and smoothed-out rapidly, with totally "unknown" causal mechanisms. Much more has been "supposed" for the Big Bang, than has actually been demonstrated from the current facts (or the real, observed data).

The Comedy-Recycling theory is either a better description of what is going on, or it is not. The Comedy-Recycling theory is either a simpler understanding of this universe, or it is not. The universe either behaves closer-to the C-R theory expectations, or it does not. All of these should be demonstrated over time. HINT: Over the last 30 years, this author HAS noticed a decided "endorsement" of something close-to the C-R theory expectations from nature. I would welcome an honest, independent, unbiased comparison, by ALL of you readers at home. Check it out for yourselves.

My belief is that the C-R theory fits our universe better, is far simpler to understand, and is more compatible with many known newly-discovered phenomenon that do not fit well into current understandings or paradigms using the Big Bang.

Getting back to the video segments. Please feel free to watch the segments, and try to imagine the events described from a C-R theory point-of-view. It would not be unreasonable to need to review them many times, in context, to start to appreciate their "newness". I have covered most of the key concepts very briefly. {Expect to NEED to read-through the on-line text of corresponding sections in the C-R theory, to extract the full value, and appreciate the subtleties.} Some redundancy is allowed for segments to notice certain areas common to all videos. More will be added soon, to join the "family" of available videos.

I would like to "plug" the segment on "Curvature IS the Real Cause of Gravity". This highlights one of the KEY concepts in the C-R theory. It is the "discovery(?") that curvature changes the energy-content of matter, and this IS what produces gravity, as we know it. The concept is so new, and so different, so "out-of-the-box", thinking-wise, it has been both ignored or disregarded by standard theories. Only the C-R theory makes an argument that in this way, nature has solved the very tricky problem, How to Cause gravity without "radiating" anything at "greater than the speed-of-light", outside the Black-Hole ^C-R. [Like speed-of-light "limited" gravitons, travelling only at "c", to "cause" gravity.]

Just this week, we added a segment on "The Great Attractor". What is a serious mystery to conventional theory, is shown to be easily understood with a simple new change in thinking, unique to the C-R theory. Additionally, the "Great Attractor" is nature’s answer to some important questions [see the video to learn what they are].

Also added less than two weeks ago, Why Nature Needs Two Different Inverse-square Forces. {Gravity and Electromagnetism}. If you have never wondered why, this video may start you thinking, and provide a new answer to a profound question.

The Video on "10,000 Lesser Black-Holes ^C-R at our Galaxy’s Center" provides a thought that only the C-R theory can answer. Why are 10,000 Black-Holes ^C-R just outside our galaxy’s supermassive Black-Hole ^C-R at the center. Has Nature gone awry, or is there a plan and a purpose in operation? HINT: Conventional theory has NO clue what is going on here, but guess what theory DOES have an answer?

If you have never asked yourself, Why does the speed-of-light ALWAYS measure the speed-of-light when it is measured, perhaps watching the W.I.R.D.A.R.D. Principle video might suggest an answer never considered anywhere else. Even if it is WRONG, I believe you might gain a new appreciation of something never suspected or claimed elsewhere.

Although it has been out longer than all but the original video, "April-Fooling Science, Twice" is still very worthwhile. It was intended for a premier on April-Fool’s Day, but don’t think it isn’t still relevant. I would recommend anyone check this video out, and re-consider some of your long-held beliefs.

There are also other "worthwhile" videos, but the above mentioned ones are among the best, and the most profound. If you see those first, you will have the best shot at understanding some of the ideas from the C-R theory.

If you cannot yet accept the concepts, I understand, and I also empathize. It took me quite a while, at least 3 years, to warm-up to the ideas. It took even longer before I decided, not only to embrace the concepts, but to endorse them, to advocate them, to personally explain them, and then to place it all on-line. I understand the reluctance of many out there to ditch their lifetime of learning, and switch their allegiances over to the C-R theory. The "curvature-cause" hypothesis is not yet appreciated, not yet endorsed, by the mainstream. (i.e., not yet SAFE to academically accept or promote)

I would highly encourage readers to view the available segments, and try to appreciate the possible new insights provided by the C-R theory. I hope that the visual elements, and my verbal emphasis can make the concepts seem more reasonable than my simple descriptions on the written page would seem. Ideas on these segments are not available elsewhere, and not espoused by science, and are not appreciated or even noticed.

My goal is to introduce the reader/viewer to the concepts, and try to bridge the gap and to explain some of what I think I see when I view this universe, and read about new discoveries by others. I try to point-out things not readily noticed and things not seen-as related by present professionals. There are many areas where I believe the C-R theory can contribute to a new and improved understanding of all that is going-on around us in this universe. So many newly discovered phenomenon seem to fit-in to the C-R theory mold, and seem to be governed by something close-to what the C-R theory would expect. Unless others (independent readers) notice this, too, it may prove self-fictional. I would like others to evaluate what is really seen in this universe from a C-R theory understanding. If they do not sense the excitement, and relish the possibilities for new insights; "Oh, well, I tried." If I can convince others to simply look-around, and evaluate what is already known-about, I believe we may achieve, at-least, an entirely new level of insight, a new anticipation for things to check, and where to check them. What I am trying to do is show YOU readers at home, where to look next, what to suspect for connections, or interrelatedness to C-R theory working scenarios.

A recent viewer of the video, "Disproving the World's Greatest Experts on Gravity" commented, "As long as the ball is not at the centre of the earth there's still more mass on one side than on the other side. Gravity will decrease but even 0.00001 G still means acceleration."

The C-R Theory's Author and segment host's reply:

Thank you for writing in and posting your reply.  I would agree, from the conventional theory (Newtonian) way of thinking, your response would be correct, and would be the standard way of thinking.  If you carefully check out the C-R theory ideas, what I tried to show is that real gravity may have other ideas, and Nature has "laid her cards on the table, face-up, and showed everyone her hand." to speak metaphorically.

Note that Einstein claimed that curvature was the cause of gravity.  The C-R theory is trying to take that point and emphasize it, and believe it, and demonstrate what that might truly mean.  I would agree that, by conventional thinking (what IS written in textbooks, what IS taught in class), the curvature idea has been dismissed, missed, and disrespected.  What the C-R theory is attempting to do is show anyone willing to listen, is that Nature may not always work like the textbooks think, or expect.

The point of the experiment is to show that, BY THE EXPERIMENT, the ball, starting-from the surface of the earth, when thrown into LESSER curvature (in this case, UP into the air), ALWAYS returns back into GREATER gravitational curvature. *(The exception would be, if you could toss the ball up with greater-than either the earth's orbital velocity or the escape velocity, after allowing for losses-by air-resistance and drag.)

It is interesting that the Newtonian point is so widely trusted, and believed, it is ACCEPTED as a FACT.  My point is, it has NEVER been tested from-UNDER the earth's MAXIMUM gravity, below 2886 km under the earth's surface.  It is ASSUMED to work just the same, from "under there", as it does from above the earth.

What you missed, (and you are joined by almost ALL of earth's scientists, geologists, physicists, and others) is that: IF the ball falls only to MAXIMUM curvature, and NOT BEYOND it, to MINIMUM curvature, at the earth's center, the Newtonian rules WILL NOT apply (regardless of what is PRINTED in the textbooks, or what is taught.)

I would agree with you that it is EXPECTED to fall all the way to the center of the earth, but I would caution you that this has NEVER actually been tested or OBSERVED, down there.

What was done, in the experiment in the YouTube video, was to SHOW that by that experiment, one COULD claim that the ball WOULD fall ONLY to the greatest (maximum) curvature.  The observed result, DIRECTLY from that experiment was: Every time the ball was tossed into lesser (weaker) gravitational curvature, the ball returned back, on it's own, into greater curvature, without fail.

My claim, based ONLY upon that ONE experiment (which ANYONE can do), is that we NOW have experimental evidence to cast possible doubt upon an almost universal expectation by experts, teachers, and textbooks.

Admittedly, neither side could be demonstrated to be true (or PROOVED false), using present technology.  What I was trying to show you was, THAT there is a reasonable doubt, based SOLELY upon the above experiment.

Your conclusions may differ.  Based upon conventional thinking, that above experiment is not the same. (But that is NOT proof, it is EXPECTATION, based-upon the Newtonian formula.)

I do thank you for writing-in, and for DEFENDING the conventional view, which I have no doubt, you believe.  I would simply ask, please perform the above experiment, and think about it from a "curvature-based" (or CURVATURE-CAUSED) viewpoint.  If you HONESTLY do so, you may come to realize there is a possible dilemma, and a real reason to doubt THE EXPECTED OUTCOME.

Nature HAS NOT hidden the answer, but POSTED-IT in plain sight, for all to see, and all to check.  NOTE: From this experiment, the ball ALWAYS returns back to the GREATEST curvature, and NEVER, NEVER, NEVER returns to lesser (weaker) gravitational curvature.  If you HONESTLY do not expect the ball to "fall" from Greatest curvature, at the Core  Mantle Boundary {CMB}, back up, towards the LESSER curvature at the surface of the earth, I would join you.  However, if you would expect the ball to fall from the GREATEST gravitational curvature, at the CMB, and fall to even lesser gravitational curvature, becoming MINIMUM curvature, at the center of the earth, PLEASE perform the above experiment again, and check your notes about curvature's values.  AFTER doing so, do you now see what I'm saying?  Do you sense a potential dilemma?

The standard Newtonian expectation is one way, the expectation from curvature is almost exactly the opposite.  The experiment you performed seems to demonstrate the curvature-based outcome is more likely, or would conform to the conclusions from the experiment.  I did ask, at the end of the experiment, who YOU, the viewer at home would believe.  You have answered your particular choice.  We differ in our conclusions.  I have an experiment, which ANYONE can perform, which suggests that a non-Newtonian outcome may be much more reasonable than has been suspected.

I do look forward to the day when the outcome can be tested.

HINT: When humans return to the Moon, drilling a shaft deep down, the C-R theory predicts that a ball will not fall.  On the Moon, the maximum curvature IS already at the surface, and NOT anywhere below.  We may find out within 20 years.

Sorry for the length of the response, but I do want to emphasize the dilemma, and give viewers/readers a clearer picture of what I'm claiming in the video.

HINT: If the C-R theory ideas don't sound crazy to you, you probably don't understand them.

Jerry Reynard  7-29-2009  C-R theory author and segment host.

Although it does not have anything to do with the overall C-R theory, I would like to include a few technical details for the interested viewer-reader, about the shooting of the segments for the C-R theory.

The first actual segment which we shot was the simple experiment, Disproving the World’s Greatest Experts on Gravity.  We shot that outside of the Gallery Place main entrance, on a cold stone bench on a cold winter’s day in February.  Although I was happy with the video quality, the sound lacked the clarity I had hoped-for.  Some segments not used on the included clip used the built-in mike on the Sony camcorder, and it was not suitable for downtown use.  The low frequency bus rumble and wind noise and overall traffic noise was objectionable even though the traffic was 10-20 times further from the camera than I was.  The included segment used a Calrad shotgun mike about 3 feet away from me (out of camera range).  The sound was better, but the traffic and wind noise was still much greater than I cared for.

Segments filmed in a park a few weeks later used the same shotgun mike even closer, and placed on the ground (on a short gooseneck mike stand), aimed up at me (at least 35 degrees away from city traffic a half-block behind me).  The occasional fire-engine’s, sirens, and bus and truck rumble, and traffic horns were noticeable, but not dominating.  I did enable a frequency-rolloff filter afterwards in the editing studio, where I cut everything below 300 Hz and removed highs above 5 Khz.  (I use this for almost all voice segments shot outside, in the real world.)  The noise is recorded, but filtered after-the-fact.

When we started shooting segments at the National Building Museum at the Big Blue Nut (part of a sculpture outside the building), I used the shotgun mike handheld, within 6", and the background noise was much less annoying.  We tried a cheap wireless mike as an alternative for sound pick-up, but the radio frequency interference downtown DC made it near-useless, with dropouts and clicks randomly occurring.  The setup may be OK for the suburbs, but we don’t bring it along anymore on downtown video shoots.

Almost all of the camera shots are mounted to a tripod.  I have a lightweight tripod, with lousy pan or sweep capabilities, which I use on fixed, non-moving shots.  Once set, it stays motionless.  I have a much nicer tripod with very smooth fluid-like motion, with good pan characteristics, but it is much-bigger, and about twice as heavy.  (Bringing it inside buildings is more of a hassle, too, with increased security worries.)  It also stands as high as 6’ when cranked-up all the way, so it is good for shots needing height advantages.

I don’t like face close-ups, especially of me, and since I edit all the videos, none get used by me.  Broadcasters like to over-zoom-in on faces when their hired "talent" is talking, but I don’t work for them.  I like very relaxed, room-sized conversation-style talks, as if I were in your living room, or in some public place, telling you about the C-R theory.  No-one has written-in to complain, yet {but even if they did, I might not change}, so I intend to keep it that way for the near future.

I am still learning to edit videos with the software, Sony Vegas Pro 8 version.  I haven’t nearly mastered all the tricks, yet, but there is enormous capability within the software.  I have been tempted to try-to color-correct or contrast-enhance some of the videos, but I haven’t done so.  I haven’t even tried any of the multitude of transition effects from scene-to-scene.  Many of the segments have been single-takes, with no internal editing.

I still have several hours of shots needing editing, and have enough material for 20-30 more short segments.  Since many of the C-R theory ideas are very different from standard science-thinking, I hope these video clips help to get-across the C-R theory point-of-view better than just "words on a page".  I know many of these ideas have never even been considered as reasonable, and I know mainstream science rejects (or rejected in the past and intend to remain consistent) the key C-R theory ideas, because no-one has ever considered or championed them.  I intend to change that with these videos.

I expect those that already have an opinion will not change overnight, if ever.  What I hope-for is that a new generation, who have not yet been taught that things don’t work this way, might find the advantages in understanding gained by considering the C-R theory points outweigh the old methods, which clearly DON’T understand, much less anticipate, much of what is seen in this universe.

I am reminded of an old quote (I believe asked of Neils Bohr): Professor, we all know your theory is crazy, the real question is; is it crazy enough?  I am additionally reminded of a suitable hypothetical humorous reply: Dear Mr. Reynard, I strongly doubt your C-R theory is half crazy, I believe both halves are crazy.  Such methods may be needed to arrive at a simple way to understand what goes-on in this universe.  It is one thing to come-up with convoluted theories based-upon "squiggly-line funny Greek symbols" filling-up blackboards or book pages needing triple PhD-major degrees to understand, but the C-R theory did not try that way.

Upcoming segments expected soon should be: 10,000 lesser Black-Holes ^C-R at our galaxy’s central 3 Light-years; Overcoming Entropy; "brand-name" Black-Holes ^C-R, and their 2 "key" internal parts; Why Supernova Remnants continue Expanding; What LHC scientists have already missed, (and right under their noses, too); A Prediction from UnderstandingCurvature: No Frame-Dragging

I have a list with at least 40-50 more potential short topics I would like to cover, giving a unique C-R theory insight into our universe.  Almost all of these ideas covering: "How gravity [as curvature] works (& friends)", are new areas (to science), totally unexpected by the way current scientists have been trained.  Even if these ideas are wrong, they have NEVER been objectively considered, just pre-rejected or excluded.  I would like to demonstrate how I understand that curvature really works, and how it imposes certain constraints upon matter, in very simple ways, that reveals a "hidden-side" of our universe as a complete, working-recycling system, "closed-off" yet not "run-down" or dissipated.  How what we see in this universe IS EVIDENCE of a system, operating smoothly and precisely, behaving as one might expect such a system to do.

    My hope is that, if I show you, the blog readers, where to look, what to look-for, how to check nature out, what it is doing, why "what is actually seen" makes sense, how it fits into a plan, and reasons that it gives YOU a more reasonable explanation than the existing competition {The Big Bang}, should give at least some readers valuable new insights they have never considered before.  I want to share these new thoughts, new processes, new understandings with anyone who will listen (or read them).  If you then reject them, at least you have had the opportunity to learn something new, and to find-out a new way to learn from nature by simple observation.  If you have been too well indoctrinated by the current system, those who replace you may come to my understanding.

If these C-R theory ideas I have presented are not correct, then any errors should surface and be pointed-out.  The events I describe, and the methods I suggest to use should fail spectacularly (now or in the future).  You will then know another way that nature does not work.  If I can get other individuals looking into 40-50 areas of current poor understanding, maybe one of them can see something more than I have seen, if I am wrong.  At least, the jokes should still be funny, even if the insight expires.

As always, your comments, questions, and suggestions are welcome.  If any readers know of phenomenon I have not mentioned, or linked-in to the C-R theory, that sound like they could fit-in to the C-R theory understanding, or bolster the C-R theory’s acceptance, that would probably be even more welcome.

If you can think a new thought, or discover a new process inspired by the C-R theory’s ideas (but not directly attributable to it), that would be fine, too.

Last revised July, 7, 2009