I would like to reference an upcoming program on Nova on PBS, Feb 17th. After the main program on 4 winged dinosaurs, the host, Neil Degrasse Tyson does a segment where he imagines jumping down a tunnel from the surface of the earth, passing through the center of the earth, then re-emerging on the other side. While his cautions about the hazards from this tunnel in the real world are valid, such as the very high temperature with depth and air pressure (building-up with depth as one descended), the central point of the thought experiment is false {although it is the “Standard Book Answer”, as far as almost all textbooks are concerned.}

I would like to propose a simple experiment that your PBS home viewers can safely do in the privacy of their own living rooms (for under $1.00) which will likely suggest that the answer given in that end segment is false, or should at least generate a reasonable and healthy scientific controversy.

The Experiment:

Take any reasonable sized ball, and toss it safely into the air, not so hard as to injure anyone, touch the ceiling, or create unsafe conditions for nearby bystanders. Toss the ball high enough that it leaves your hands, and see what happens. Always throw the ball so that you can catch it again. (This is not a necessity for the experiment, but a great convenience for repetition of the experiment, quickly, without chasing the ball over and over again.)

Notice that whenever you (or home viewers) toss the ball up into the air, you are always sending the ball into LESSER gravitational curvature. Notice that, after a brief rise, the ball slows down, and returns back down to (near) the original position, if you were careful with your original toss. Notice that the ball ALWAYS returns back into slightly greater curvature, nearer the surface of the earth. Conclusion: On the surface of the earth, the ball always returns back to greater curvature from lesser curvature. {Please note any exceptions in your home experiments, if any ever occur.}

Viewers at home may remark, that is hardly a new, or remarkable or radical experiment. People have been getting exactly that same result for as far back as we know.

Now, let us consider a different situation, which cannot practically be performed, due to extreme difficulty in re-creating the exact conditions. If one considers the Newtonian equation for gravity = G (m₁ M₂) / r² , it should be apparent that the value should decrease as the radius decreases, all the way to the center of the earth. This is the standard “book answer”.

In our real world, the true answer is not quite so simple for one simple reason. The density of matter MORE THAN QUADRUPLES with depth, at least until one reaches the core-mantle boundary. After that, the density still increases, but does not quadruple.

If you consult the CRC Manual as a reference book, you can see that gravitational curvature (the strength of gravity) actually INCREASES with depth, ever so slightly, until one gets to about 2,886 Km straight down. Depending upon location at the surface, gravity starts at around 9.81 m/sec² at the (blue) surface, and increases to 10.69 m/sec² at 2,886 km below the (light brown) surface (the core-mantle boundary) [CMB].

From that maximum area, gravity then decreases to ZERO* at the center of the earth (or more correctly, to it’s minimum value on earth. *The gravitational influence from the moon, other planets, the sun, and other stars and galaxies is still present, so the end value may actually exceed zero.)

Now, if one were to dig a tunnel from this CMB region, through to the center of the earth, gravitational curvature would start-off at MAXIMUM, at the top of that tunnel at the CMB, and decrease steadily until one reached the center of the earth.

If we were to apply our RESULTS of the experiment we just performed above, our conclusion MUST BE exactly the opposite to that of the “world’s greatest experts”, including those results imagined in your program on February 17th, 2009. (I know that broadcast segment has aired before, in previous years. I do know that I sent a brief response before, but I did not include the home experiment with differing results at that time.)

I would challenge you at the Nova staff, if you do not accept the results of the above experiment, that is one thing, but, I would request that you at least offer your home viewers the opportunity to perform the above experiment themselves, and then, decide for themselves whether to accept their own experimental results, or whether to accept the “prevailing opinion of the world’s greatest experts” view(s) as presented and hosted by Mr. Tyson. {A strictly “Newtonian” view, based on the 17th century notion of gravity behaving as-if it emanated from a single-point source at the center.}

You can read more about this at www.cr-theory.org , or The Comedy-Recycling Theory of the Entire Known Universe. I have an edited video of me performing my own experiment above, with my running commentary, on-line. I do have the original high-definition camcorder footage of that same experiment that I could release to support MY conclusions. (Your results WILL be the same, too.)

Just this last weekend, myself and my web-master were shooting some video segments for the C-R theory, about an experiment you readers can do at home, in the privacy of your living room (or anywhere else), for under $1.00, which will disprove what some of the world’s greatest experts on gravity believe. I hope some of that footage gets available very soon. We also filmed a visual “joke”, where I stood with my head (apparently) aflame, saying “Another bright idea from the Comedy-Recycling theory”. We also have a blooper segment, where I am saying those lines, and a bus or truck drives behind me, and blocks off the flame-illusion. It should be a short attention grabber. I might also add that no photographers were burned in the making of the video, and kids, don’t try this at home. Attach a link to a still photo (or two) here. These photos are not composited or photo-shopped, although they may be cropped, reduced in size or resolution, or color-corrected or enhanced. That “bright idea” line may be added to the segment at the end, to add a little levity, and create an anticipation of humor to follow in additional segments.

The first segments we shot at the entrance to Gallery Place, right up the stairs by the bucking bronco statue. The first few segments we shot had high wind noise from the camcorder’s internal mike, and one of the later segments had a fire-truck siren to contend with. We also got a brief shot of a DC fire engine responding to a call, which could be added right after the bright idea (joke) segment reviewed above. We hope to shoot additional segments for later topics. I try to keep them brief, approx. 3 minutes, and not too heavy, topic wise. Whether I edit in graphics, or stick with a static shot, I don’t know yet. Commercial videos on the networks try to change the shots every 5 seconds or less, and often move the cameras and change the views constantly within those segments. With a budget fractions of that of commercial broadcast videos, I was not aiming for such a “sophisticated” level. Rather, I want to tell a very simple story, in my own words, with my own emphasis, with my own hand gestures, in a non-threatening way.

Whether it fades into well deserved obscurity, or gains some eventual notoriety, as a legitimate new idea, challenging the established Newtonian beliefs in gravity, totally unsuspected (hence, un-looked-for) by the majority of those in that field, remains to be seen. When the segment is ready for on-line viewing, I will place a link here.

I would like to eventually explain many of the most basic, simple ideas from the C-R theory, and I welcome readers suggestions for what areas they would like me to try to personally go over. Especially areas where readers (actually, writers-in), have trouble understanding what I am trying to describe.

Although the C-R theory ideas are new, they really are (or should-be) simple to understand. Almost all are derived from knowledge of existing designs, or existing solutions nature already uses. How the C-R theory uses these ideas IS new, but the ideas themselves are really all quite simple.

I would also like to acknowledge that this February, 2009, also represents the 30th anniversary of my understanding of the C-R theory, since I first glimpsed how events in this universe might be working. It is also the 3rd anniversary on-line at the Cr-theory.org web address. Additionally, we have recorded the 8,000th visitor, although the first months the hit counter was not added, so the true count is probably higher. Much of the material is relatively new, added or revised within the last 3 years. I believe my understanding has deepened, and I continually find articles in the media which seem to support the many overall C-R theory hypotheses. Among some of the most interesting, and pro-C-R items from last year: a finding that the measured aftermath of a supernova was almost totally dust-free. The standard view had been that there should be an enormous amount of freed-up “dust material” ejected from the supernova. Instead, the environment was “clean”. That the C-R theory would expect this, being positive-ionization driven, it is not at all surprising that the area might be almost totally devoid of residual dust. Scientists also found and measured a cosmic ray with 300 quintillion electron-volts of energy, a staggering sum for conventional physics to muster. I read elsewhere that each proton repelling another proton is around 1,000 electron-volts, so the 300 quintillion electron volts would “only” need 300 quadrillion protons simultaneously released, a “mere-pittance” to the quantities suspected to be released by the C-R theory supernova hypothesis.

I did find a web-site (I don’t remember specifically when, but it might have been last year) that listed at least 4 known stars that have changed their position or class on the H-R (Hertzsprung-Russell) charts, within a human lifetime. By standard hypothesis, this should take millions of years to change the mode of thermonuclear fusion that substantially within any star. I found out that now the measured current between Jupiter and Io is at least 5,000,000 AMPS, whereas I had seen 3,000,000 amps in earlier times. I also saw that NASA had measured a potential of 400,000 volts across the face of Io. That conventional theory would have a problem with that, in a predominantly “neutral” universe. That the C-R theory has this is possible evidence of substantial electrical activity right in our own “proverbial” backyard, right under our noses.

I just read an account of a huge “proton storm” measured here on earth in 2005, which arrived from our sun in something like 30 minutes. That “small belch” of protons might represent some-type of “less-than-nova-level” proton-escape, much closer to “home” than I had previously claimed. I suspect that it might be an “orders-of-magnitude-smaller” release than the nova, supernova… chain of proton-release events I have talked-about with the C-R theory.

There may well be some other articles within this last year that I can’t remember off the top of my head, but that place the C-R theory ideas within the realm of understanding real phenomena that we actually see going on all around us in this universe. I can honestly claim that I can’t remember ANY article suggesting some event or phenomenon which would seem to rule-out any of the main C-R theory ideas. In my next blog, I will relate a possible change I might have to make in the C-R theory’s understanding of a Black-Hole ^C-R eating another Black-Hole ^C-R.

In my last blog, I stated that I would like to review some of the evidence that is supported by the C-R theory. (Not the other way around)

One of the most compelling areas, where the C-R theory has a clear advantage over any conventional theory, is in the double negative ionization of our sun's photosphere. It is kind-of a fancy way of saying that, when our sun heats-up hydrogen to 6000° C, or almost 10,000° F, instead of shedding all it's electrons, as most (reasonable) heated gasses do here on earth, every hydrogen atom there PICKS-UP an additional electron, as well as holding-on to the one electron it normally carries around at earth’s room temperature

Of course, this doesn’t make any sense at all, unless there is a READY SOURCE of extra electrons, which standard theories don’t want, don’t predict, don’t expect, don’t require, and can’t understand. Only the C-R theory wanted there to be excess electrons there in the vicinity of the sun, if our sun was really powered by a small Black-Hole ^C-R, and not primarily by thermonuclear fusion. The C-R theory could have lived with no extra electrons found, and would have concluded that no Black-Hole ^C-R was present there.

It was some 25 years after the original C-R theory came into being that this author found out that science already KNEW about these excess electrons, but did it’s level best to cover-over the fact, sweep it under the proverbial rug, or ignore it and hope it went away. I know of no other theory which would CELEBRATE the discovery of excess electrons.

I found at least one web-site for the Electric Universe idea, that references at least 4 known stars that have changed their characteristics on the H-R (Hertzsprung-Russell) diagram notably over relatively short periods (a human lifetime), not in the millions of years those stars should take if the thermonuclear-fusion route was followed to the letter of the law.

At least one star has changed virtually through every phase of the diagram, including color-class changes and orders of magnitude changes, since the end of the 1800’s until the present day. This should not be possible, at all, if the standard energy-generating process takes place inside stars. Yet it does.

By standard theory, this universe should be mostly electrically neutral, and pretty uninteresting. However, in every direction we look, we see evidence of polarized light, indicating massive electrical fields, or huge magnetic fields. Standard theory does not support that evidence, and does not agree with it. The C-R theory says, “YES” I can easily live with that.

The C-R theory may be the ONLY theory on the internet that has a simple, easy to understand idea of what “the Great Attractor” is. If there is a preferred reference frame superimposed over this universe (by the matter confined inside), then it is easy to understand that we are not at the center, and we run slower than objects there. Conventional theory needs yet another weird anomaly to explain what it is, and there is no overall understanding of what the Great Attractor represents in the scheme of things.

While the Big Bang thinks it has an idea of what it sees in this universe, we are still left with an unsatisfying 5 major anomalies needed in context to make sense of the Big Bang. Even with all that, there is no source of the initial start, no source for the continuing expansion, much less the expanding expansion. There is no real cause for hyperinflation, just a need for it to occur to explain some of the conditions observed in this universe. (Why every direction is as similar to all others, and why the overall background radiation in this universe is as smooth as it is, despite the lumpiness and clumpiness we see.)

According to a 2005 article in Scientific American, the outer 1/5 of our universe consists mostly of ionized hydrogen. Certainly, the processes going on by conventional theories do not support this ionization. If the C-R theory is true, however, our universe could easily be filled with large quantities of ionized hydrogen, being continually replenished over time, so that our universe ALWAYS looks approximately like it does right now. The same processes are always going on, and will always go on, and always have gone on. The matter that is ionizing right now may be different, but some always will do so, and the processes are continuing.

In the standard Big Bang scenario, our universe was almost pure energy until approximately 300,000 years after the start, and then everything expanded and cooled-off sufficiently for the universe to de-ionize. Some later not-yet-understood process later re-ionized the hydrogen we see today, but that is a “temporary” situation for maybe a few billion more years at best. Eventually, the entire universe is supposed to expand beyond current recovery, and the universe will cool-off, fade-out, and die with more of a light whimper sometime in the far future.

The C-R theory is not deterred by the 2.7 K radiation coming evenly from all directions. The C-R theory claims that it is not the faded initial burst from the Big Bang, but is more similar to an averaged-out roll of distant thunder, but coming from all directions in a continually refreshed manner. The topic was covered in an earlier blog, so I would just briefly mention it here.

The level of electrical activity found with enormous currents also supports the C-R theory, and the C-R theory supports those processes to create that activity. Earth’s own aurora’s have been measured with currents over 1,000,000 AMPS of current (with each ampere representing 6.02 10²³ electrons per second). Jupiter’s moon Io has had a flux-tube with at least 5,000,000 amps of current measured between Io and Jupiter. Certainly, standard theory is at a total loss to try to explain the origin of that level of electrical currents, especially on a continuing basis, and right in our own solar system.

Some polarized light measurements in distant regions of space have been computed to suggest a current something like 10¹⁹