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

In the popular media, it is always said that our universe is open, expanding (with expanding expansion), has no center and no edge.  The C-R theory would dispute that strongly, and in this blog I would like to argue the case, and present the C-R theory side.

Let me start with the basics.  If you understand gravitational curvature, it must superimpose a preferred reference frame over a closed universe.  There will be minimum curvature (bending, warping, shape-influencing pulling) at the center (actually zero from the surrounding mass, plus a base amount, if any, added from any possible larger external surroundings (unknown to us, but quite possible).

For any spherical item, a light bulb, a basketball, a planet, a ping-pong ball, a bowling ball, we are not surprised that it would have a center, and an outer edge roughly the same distance from the center in all directions.  Such is also the case for our universe.

If one can imagine any structure as large as our universe, it does not take all that high of a density to completely close off that structure.  It does take a lot of matter, however, with the size being so enormous that all human-based comparisons seem inadequate.  Nonetheless, the C-R theory states that our universe appears almost exactly filled with enough matter to almost close-off our universe most simply because that IS now the case, and always has been so.

The red-shifts observed everywhere in this universe are almost entirely because of a gravitational effect.  It is known that more intense gravity (such as that on the surface of this earth) runs slower than less “bent” gravity, such as that experienced by a GPS satellite some 22,100-22,200 km above earth’s surface.  Although the satellite’s time slows down some 7 microseconds per day from the higher orbital velocity, the satellite gains almost 45 microseconds per day from the lesser gravitational strength at that height, for a net gain of about 38 ½  microseconds per day.  Technically, we do not notice that because the clock circuits aboard the satellites are programmed to “miscount” the true time, to correct for this extra time gain.

In the big scheme of things within this universe, this amount is miniscule, but does serve as a guide to much stronger actions.  At the farthest objects we can see, the red-shift is very strong, and the slowdown is substantial.  Notice also that the objects we do see farther away ARE NOT running at the same clock-rate as we experience here on earth, but they are substantially slowed-down.  That means that they are not emitting light at the same rate as they would here on earth, and this is why we also see them dimmer.

The second item about that condition is that, since the objects there ARE NOT like objects here on earth, but are really slowed down as they appear, when scientists here on earth see their light and then CORRECT their red-shifts as if they really WERE the same as here on earth, they mis-correct those objects, and conclude that they must be dimmer than scientists imagined (which they ACTUALLY ARE), then mis-conclude that the perceived expansion of this universe is accelerating, or expanding even more!!

This means that in all probability, the size of our universe has been severely overestimated (by a factor of 10 or more), and the amount of “missing” mass needed to fill-up this universe has been also greatly overestimated.

Another area of common error is that conventional, Newtonian-type understanding of a closed universe is that it must start collapsing almost immediately, unless there is a “mysterious” dark energy present to counter the incessant pull of gravity.  From a good understanding of curvature, this is clearly not the case.  Notice that the most curved matter in this universe is at the outer edges, with curvature decreasing until, at the center, curvature is minimum.  This greatly stabilizes the closed universe, and keeps it from collapsing.  This also means that matter at the outermost edges of this universe is the most “downhill”, energy-wise, from a gravitational curvature point-of-view.  When conventional scientists were figuring-out the equations they tried to use to understand the overall structure of this universe, they totally disregarded the reference-frame that a complete gravitational curvature would impose over the contents.

Since the C-R theory is based upon a concept-based understanding, and not derived from studying equations (book-based simple solutions from lab-models), a new understanding was reached sensing the inherent stability of any closed universe.

If one tried imagining known items, like a bowling ball, or a large bolder, or a ping pong ball, and imagined that they were in imminent danger of collapse (which they are not), one could get the sense that our universe is just as stable, and just as unlikely to collapse.  Those that imagine the imminent collapse are somewhat like the scientists back around 1900 who imagined the hydrogen atom’s electron collapsing into the proton, based upon Maxwell’s equations. (see The Ultraviolet Catastrophe.

The simple way to tell that such a time-rate change is going on in this universe, is nature’s answer, hidden in plain sight.  That is the blue-shifted region we know as the Great Attractor.  This volume of the universe displays objects that are blueshifted to us, instead of red-shifted.  While a giant, weird gravitational anomaly might explain such behavior, a much simpler explanation is provided by the C-R theory.  The C-R theory explanation is that: We live in a closed universe, with the preferred reference frame superimposed over us, and we are not at the center.  The maximum blueshifted region corresponds with the center of the entire universe.  That volume of space is running the fastest, and is un-slowed-down in any way.  We here on earth are more slowed down, hence those faster-clocking areas appear blueshifted to us.  NOTE: If such a thing is seen, we would expect that behind the Great Attractor we would detect no additional in-falling of matter from behind, towards the attractor.  Although there is some amount of large mass there, as is common in almost all known galaxies, there is nowhere near enough mass to cause the proposed “attractor” that conventional theory expects.

Also note, if the Great Attractor really was some giant anomaly, then relativity demands that everything everywhere in this universe should be identical, and many Great Attractors should be seen.  Alas (for those expectations) there is one, and only one.

If the Great Attractor is caused by gravitational slowdown, then our universe should have one, and only one center, thus, only one place of maximum blueshift.  Additionally, in all directions, including far behind the Great Attractor, the far-reaches of this universe appear with the same red-shifts in all directions.

Note: In a closed universe, we do not violate conservation of energy continually.  We do not need to accelerate ALL the contents of the universe, and we do not need to accelerate the acceleration rate too.  Our universe’s contents are forever contained, and forever intact, and secure.  The overall inside density is exactly sufficient, and will never fall short, and will never gain additional mass or energy.  Technically, because the universe is contained, the contents of this universe will never fade-out or dilute over time.  The 2.7 K radiation we measure from earth will never change it’s value over time.  The temperature value will change with changing location (provided a sufficient distance has been covered).

PREDICTION: In the time it takes the Milky-Way galaxy and Andromeda to pivot around their common, center-of-mass-axis 180° , the redshift-blueshift of the respective viewpoints will reverse.  Prediction:  If we could ask someone in Andromeda right now, how they see us on planet earth (and environment), they would announce they see us as redshifted.

If they did see us as blueshifted, then the C-R theory would confirm that our two galaxies were on a collision heading.

NOTE the simplifications gained by the C-R theory viewpoint.  Our universe regains its simplicity, and things happen for a good reason.  There are no more strange expectations of wild happenings on an ongoing basis, with energy appearing from seemingly nowhere.
      

There is another consideration that the C-R theory also has an opinion on.  That is why do galaxies seem to have much greater gravitational presence extending out to the visible edges of the galaxy.  The simple answer is that the coupling of orbital motion observed in matter more distant from the center of a galaxy is held in place not by gravity, but by electromagnetic actions (and interactions) between the stars in the radial arms.  It is not the gravitational mass of the galaxies that holds the spinning galaxy arms in place, but electromagnetic interaction on a massive scale.  The large polarized current flows almost hold-hands with the other stars, but are not dependent nearly as much on gravity as standard theory has supposed.

I will not cover the source of the currents in this blog, but earlier blogs will describe a simple mechanism whereby stars may produce much greater current flows (hence magnetic fields) than standard theory ever supposed.  The interaction between those currents, with collimated flows, locking currents, and magnetic binding may help to explain why galaxies hold together, rather than fly apart.  The C-R theory proposes that we never need any type of dark matter to gravitationally bind galaxies together.

The C-R theory proposes that the amount of magnetic-electrical currents flowing in galaxies may be billions of times stronger than conventional theories suppose.  Check the earlier blog on the double negative ionization of ALL the hydrogen atoms in our sun’s photosphere to get some idea of the level of currents that may be emanating just from our sun.  Combine, unite, and synchronize these currents into mutually joined fields, and local gravity may not be needed to explain the motions observed in the outermost stellar-spiral arms of a galaxy, the furthest from the galaxy’s core.

There should be a new version of a very simple experiment anyone can do at home to test out a new concept of gravity, which has been hidden in plain sight for many years, on line after I return from vacation.  The experiment is demonstrated in the on-line video: Disproving the world’s greatest experts on gravity, but the sound is not as good as the visual portion.  I have a new version already shot, and awaiting editing, but not currently ready for display.

For the inquiring reader, who has always wondered, what would it be like inside a Black-Hole ^C-R, I have very good news for you.  You already know, and have seen it anytime you went out and looked at the night sky.  We (humanity) live inside a giant Black-Hole ^C-R, or more correctly, in the Active Zone ^C-R portion of a Black-Hole C-R, which is a C-R theory exclusive idea, unique to the C-R theory.  Of course, our universe is much bigger than the normal, lesser Black-Holes ^C-R we almost “see” in this universe, and these smaller Black-Holes ^C-R most certainly don’t have the inside elbow room that our entire universe contains.  The principles are the same.  The smaller individual Black-Holes ^C-R may have solid, liquid, or plasma filled active centers, and are thus unlikely to contain any advanced civilizations.

Just as our universe contains many billions of lesser Black-Holes ^C-R, it is conceivable that the Black-Hole ^C-R containing our universe may be a part of a yet larger mega-universe, further outside our visible range.  Since we are insulated, isolated and closed-off from this outside range, with a likely Neutral Zone ^C-R buffering the barrier, and consuming any external matter or energy the yet larger Black-Hole ^C-R might ever consume, we are unlikely to ever know the answer (and if we did know the answer, it would almost have to be as a result of a universe-sterilizing catastrophic failure, or an “inward release” of our universe’s Neutral Zone ^C-R.  If one thinks of the equipment damaging energy release from the confined protons experienced at the LHC during it’s opening weeks of testing, and multiplies that by a full universe’s worth of hot, even more sizzlingly-energetic protons, one gets the idea what might await our most “meddlesome” progeny in the billions of years to come.

The likelihood of the above scenario ever happening is highly unlikely, due to many built-in safety mechanisms inherent in our universe’s design.  (We couldn’t even start such meddling until we reached the outer edges of our universe, which is a very long time off.)  If is far and away more outrageous than even such trivial (single stellar system) energy-harnessings like a proposed Dyson sphere.  This is where an advanced society harnesses or harvests (confines and captures) the entire stellar energy output of a sun, like ours, for their use and pleasure.

Such an arrangement could theoretically provide 10 billion humans each with the equivalent energy of our entire planet’s worth of solar energy for personal use.  Even with a horribly inefficient recovery system, we could hardly imagine having that amount of energy at our beck and call.  There might even be enough that some people would be willing to share their abundance with anyone in need.  It might also drive up the value of such “useless” commodities as abundant cold or a shady spot.

Back to reality.  I have heard much speculation on our universe, it’s size, it’s age, it’s ultimate fate, it’s seemingly illogical nature, and it’s ultimate un-knowability.  I believe that the C-R theory has better answers, much more human friendly to clear understanding, and with a much better fit to the real world, as actually seen.  I certainly would like to speak-up as an advocate for a return to common sense simplicity, and give humanity a better alternative to believe in, with a far brighter distant-future.  After I return from a brief vacation, I will try to add-in illustrations to this blog.

I would like to cover restoring entropy in my next blog, and explain why our closed universe looks as “youthful and energetic” {barely a day over 13.7 billion years old} that the big bang supposes.  I often cringe when I see specials on TV spouting such preposterous views on our universe which so clearly do not make sense, and do not agree with our daily experiences.  I would like to champion a return to having Conservation of Energy as a fundamental pillar of physics, and not have it so clearly disregarded as modern thinking has gotten-away-with since at least 1929.

As always, your comments and questions are welcome.

This section of the blog, last modified June 22, 2009.