I was going to explain my thoughts on the making of the C-R theory. I would like to explain my take on gravitational curvature. Gravitational curvature can be thought of something like a shape-bending or capacity changing. Consider a balloon. Blow-up the balloon nearly full, then hold-on to the stem, but do not tie it off. If you let some or all of the air out of the balloon, this somewhat approximates how I envision curvature changing the capacity of matter to store "gravitational" energy. I also imagine a sponge lodged between two flat metal plates, with 4 screws adjusting the width of the plates between full capacity and decreasing to no capacity.

I do not know whether or not the capacity change caused by curvature is strictly dimensional, adding sub-dimensional loops smoothly, or fractal, adding smaller sub-dimensions in incremental {digital} jumps, with a possible non-continuous nature, something like a Sirpinski fractal. Whichever method nature chooses, I imagine the "path-length" increases for light (electromagnetic energy) when a slow-down occurs. This path-length change is the real cause of the red-shifts we detect in this universe. The way to tell for certain that this IS the case, is the appearance of "The Great Attractor".

If the red-shift is CAUSED by an expanding universe, there should be red-shifts everywhere. While it is true that there are red-shifts in every direction, there is also "The Great Attractor", where blue-shifts occur in one direction, up to a point. NOTE: Conventional theory can only explain this as an anomaly, otherwise, it has no "cause".

On the other hand, if our universe is FIXED in size, not expanding, and is closed-off and self-contained, then there must be a preferred reference frame superimposed over this universe. There will be NO curvature at the center, some additional curvature here at earth's location, and complete curvature in every direction. NOTE: If we are not at the exact center, then earth MUST be slowed-down somewhat as compared to the center.

NOTE: If this curvature-based red-shift is indeed the case, then science is adding a double-whammy to their thinking when they "correct" the observed visual data to remove the red-shift and restore the time-base on far-away objects to make them the same time-rate as here on earth. This means that the type 1a supernovas observed close-by and far-off do not occur at the same real time-rate. This extra mistake in reasoning is why current science believes that our universe is not only expanding, but expanding at an expanding rate.

Dear Sirs,

In response to your article (Dec. 13-19, 2008, page #32) on the Recycled Universe, and your joy over the elimination of one of the problems with the Big Bang (starting solely from a singularity), I would offer an alternative "new" theory that eliminates ALL of the problems with the Big Bang. I would like to tout The Comedy-Recycling Theory (of the Entire Known Universe) as an even better alternative.

The real problems with understanding the Big Bang consist of two major errors science has bought into, virtually without challenge or discussion. The first is the acceptance of the expansion of the universe. Hubble did find increasing red-shift with increasing distances of galaxies starting in the late 1920's.

The small problem was, this was not EVER reconciled with the EXCEPTION, the Great Attractor, where blue-shifts increase, up to a point. The only way to reconcile these is to accept that most of the redshifts and blueshifts observed are gravity-based (curvature caused). Essentially, our universe is a CLOSED universe, with a "preferred reference frame" mandatorily superimposed over it. The blueshifted area runs faster then here on earth, or more correctly, we are farther from the center, and we are slowed-down more than the center. Further outside our location, red-shifts continue to increase, all the way out to the outer edge.

Notice, this means that, contrary to the Theory of Relativity’s claims, there is not like here, timewise. The "Great Attractor" runs faster than earth, and everywhere further out from the center of this universe than earth is more redshifted to us. Note, this greatly simplifies understanding our universe, as is seen. This means that the type 1a supernova used as "standard candles" of brightness are not standard, but differ timewise in brightness from the center to the outer edges.

Surprisingly, the outer volumes of our universe are worth less energy, and therefore cannot collapse inward without picking-up more energy, which they do not have, and cannot obtain. This makes our universe perfectly stable (not expanding, and not expanding at an expanding rate, either). Note: This immediately solves the horizon problem, and explains the flatness problem. This also explains simply why our universe appears very close to omega, (appearing to be almost full of matter) because it always is exactly full. Note: this solution also does not need either "dark energy" , or" something from nothing", to continually fill, expand, and accelerate our universe.

Based on the principle of Occams’ razor, the C-R theory uses simpler ideas to accomplish and explain our universe, as we actually see it. All the major problems (5 unexplained anomalies) with the Big Bang disappear.

Although experts will disagree, and whine about violating the second law of thermodynamics, the C-R theory takes care of that objection, too, but I will leave that out of this letter. I would offer www.cr-theory.org/pdf/aprilfoolingscience.pdf

as specific alternative and improved theory to replace the big bang, or simply www.cr-theory.org as a much better overall explanation of our universe for your magazine’s readers.

Jerry Reynard (author: C-R theory)

Here is a link to the article http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026861.500-did-our-cosmos-exist-before-the-big-bang.html