In the last blog, I briefly challenged the notion of the expansion of the universe, one of the key ideas that the Big Bang is derived from.  A newer theory, the Big Bounce, does away with the singularity by allowing an older universe to collapse first, nearly into a singularity, then re-emerge as the universe we know-of as the one caused by the Big Bang, hyperinflation-phase and all. (Thereby, it keeps the other 4 anomalies from the Big Bang intact.)

When Penzias and Wilson found the 2.7 K background microwave in the early 1960's, cosmologists rejoiced that they had finally found some evidence for the "start" of the universe.  For such an extravagant claim, common science accepted it with barely a whimper.

With the C-R theory's claim that this universe is NOT expanding, but fixed in size, the 2.7 K looms large in many people's minds as something which deserves some comments.  I would be happy to relay that the C-R theory is not at all troubled by the 2.7 K microwave radiation-energy, coming evenly from all directions.  The C-R theory considers this as an ongoing process, similar to the roar one hears from a near-by waterfall.  Of course, this microwave "roar" is not nearby, and has no preferred direction.  Within a few millionths of a degree, it is uniform in all directions.

The C-R theory considers this 2.7 K as the "averaged-out" and expanded remnants of ALL of the novae, supernovae, quasars, gamma-ray bursts (GRB's) and the like.  When mentioning the expanded-out part, it is important to note that this universe is still closed-off, and fixed in size, energy content, and overall density.  The expansion occurs more horizontally than outward.  This merely averages-out and smooths-out the farthest known and detected matter, mostly IONIZED hydrogen.  (A Scientific American article in the 2005 year claimed that the outer 1/5 of our universe consisted of mostly ionized hydrogen.  Of course, they believed that the hydrogen resulted from the Big Bang, de-ionized at 300,000 years from the beginning, then selectively re-ionized again, later on.)

The C-R theory claims that this 2.7 K is evidence instead of continuous recycling (of both matter and energy, by the most-perfect system ever).  A very big, predicted difference is that in the C-R theory, this 2.7 K is continually replenished, and will NEVER red-shift (cool-down over time).  In 1.5 billion years, and in 15 billion years, as seen from earth, this 2.7 K will always measure the same.

In the Big Bang (and probably the Big Bounce) scenario(s), as the universe expands and ages, the 2.7 K continually both cools-down and fades-out.  In 1.5 billion years time, it should probably both fade and cool by at least 1%, and potentially up to 10%.  Although this would be expected, it may occur too slowly to be determined within, say, 100-1000 years (or within our full, human lifetimes).

In the C-R theory scenario, however, there is another way to test which idea is correct.  By travelling to another location, either closer-in to the center (The Great Attractor) it should measure "cooler", or by travelling-out, towards the outer edges, the 2.7 K should measure warmer, respectively.  This is due to the actual time-frame of the residents there changing, and measuring the radiation differently.  HINT: IF we, on earth see a quasar with a 90% red-shift (to us), at that quasar, the 2.7 K should measure 27 K (ten times warmer, to their ten times slower time-frame), as measured in ALL directions.  This would not be the case if our universe is expanding uniformly between all mutual observers.

If for any reason, humanity could ever communicate with other civilizations from far-away, we might know instantly if this universe is expanding, or gravitationally red-shifted by asking them if they see earth as blue-shifted or red-shifted from their home world. (Unless they came from somewhere closer-in to the Great Attractor.  Then we should appear just-as red-shifted to them as they appear blue-shifted to us. (See the multi-part diagram for a simulated voyage through this universe, for an illustrated view of this idea at: http://www.cr-theory.org/get_pdf.aspx?pdf_url=voyage-universe.pdf)

Note: From anywhere inside this universe, the view one gets will still see complete red-shifts in all directions.  The size, and relative blue-ness of the Great Attractor will change with location.  Also: The Great Attractor will never "attract" anything.  If you will, gravitationally, it is the most "uphill" location in this universe.  One would need to acquire additional real-time energy to be able to approach there.  Despite the blue-shifting, it will NEVER pull or attract mass towards it.  Just like climbing a mountain, or flying skyward, one would need to expend (or add more) energy to go nearer. {The name was ironically based upon "scientific ignorance", much the same as when Ben Franklin guessed, with 50-50 odds, that "positive" electrical charges had an excess of something, rather than a lack-of electrons.  Continual use, over time, has reinforced and maintained the naming irony.}

I would challenge both critics and skeptics to find any simpler theory, using simpler assumptions, and with fewer violations of conservation of energy, which will fit our "real-world" universe, as observed and explain the observations in harmony with the theory.  I welcome any readers to suggest any observations, experimental outcomes, or tests, in which the C-R theory can be compared to the Big Bang hypothesis.

I have posted the C-R theory on the internet, for free, to allow any and all to take their best shots at it, find any flaws in my logic, to poke holes into any weaknesses they can find.  I cannot say the C-R theory has survived such challenges, merely it has escaped attack mostly by obscurity or simple dismissal.

I do wish to offer the C-R theory as a viable alternative to those theories presented in the standard media.  It is probably too radical, and too new for current consideration.  I hope to change that over time, and develop a small base of supporters, believers, accepters, and considerers who will honestly consider both C-R's merits and any weakness or failures they can find.  If the theory is partly or completely wrong, I would like to know it.

In my next blog, I will try to present what evidence the C-R theory supports, and look at areas where there should be a clear difference in expectations between the C-R theory and standard theories.  I welcome any readers out there to build-upon the C-R theory, to accept any areas you can, and replace or improve any areas if possible.  If the C-R theory is true, I expect some readers out there to discover items I've missed, to understand things I've never challenged or haven't thought-of yet.

I usually get some new thought or understanding every 6 months to a year, and uncover something in a new way of thinking.  I look forward to the time where observant readers can contribute to the discovery process.

I hope to add a link-to page sometime in 2009.  It will be near the end of the theory.  I do not wish to lead-away my hard-won readers too easily or too soon.  I would like to show some of the web-sites I've enjoyed, and some that have ideas useful to the C-R theory, even if they do not support the overall C-R theory.  I would like to help those skeptical of the standard theories to discover some of the alternatives.  I do feel safe in my belief that they will find no better overall theory than the C-R theory, when fairly compared with all others.

I also hope to provide some short video clips, explaining some of the C-R theory ideas in my own words, and with my chosen emphasis (and editing, too).  They should be short, between two and five minutes per concept.  I hope to cover such topics as: Is our Universe Closed or Open?, gravitational curvature, time slow-down, How Black-Hole's ^C-R work, recycling of matter-energy, anomalies known to science, but not appreciated, the Great Attractor, and what it really is, why supernovae continually expand, the double-negative ionization of ALL the hydrogen atoms in our sun's photosphere, what really powers our sun, are red-shifts really Doppler shifts?, and others as I think of them.  (Topics suggested by readers for my "pro-C-R" explanation will be considered.)

I might also like to do something on FAQ's.  

I might try to "advocate" some of the Observations and Illustrations diagrams, possibly featuring or highlighting special ones in each blog.  I designed these graphics to try to convey the more complex topics in colorful and visual terms, broken down into simple steps.  I do feel they are under-utilized, and they should help readers understand and visualize the concepts, if they are featured.  Please don't leave the C-R theory without checking some (preferably ALL) items on this page.

www.cr-theory.org/observations.aspx

Please feel free to write-in to the C-R theory, you can use the contact the author section on the bottom title bar to take you to a contact form.  I do value readers questions or comments.  Even skeptics questions and comments are welcome.

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