In the short video experiment on gravity, there were many fine points I was not able to cover within the short time-limit YouTube allows. This will cover those points, and cover items I have covered inside the C-R theory, but not yet in a blog form.

In a formal experiment, one would present a goal or an objective. We hope to ascertain the normal behavior of a tossed ball. NOTE: Whenever we toss a ball up, into lesser gravitational curvature, above the surface of the earth, the ball always returns, of it’s own accord, back into lesser curvature.

Although not mentioned in the experiment, the difference slightly above the earth is approximately 1 part in 10¹⁶ per meter either real-time energy gain, or gain of real-time. The C-R theory contends that this true energy gain is the real reason we experience gravity, and it is where the energy goes when we lift-up an item into a lesser gravitational field. A GPS satellite lifted 20,200 Km. will gain about 45 usec per day from sitting in a lesser gravitational field (it also loses about 7 usec per day from the increased speed, "falling" in earth’s gravitational field at orbital velocity). The net time-gain is about 38.5 usec per day.

In our experiment, we did not ask about time gains or trying to measure the interval difference. That would have been pointless, anyway, as the net difference was way too minuscule to measure. All we wished to establish was that, if the ball was tossed into lesser gravitational curvature, it would always return, of it’s own accord, back into a greater gravitational curvature. As many times as it was tossed, it did return successfully.

A little known fact (sometimes hard to find, also), is that gravitational curvature, or the strength of gravity, is not maximum at the surface of the earth, but increases, slowly, as one descends down, towards the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB). NOTE: This is where, using the standard Newtonian formula, G= M₁ M₂/r² would get one into trouble, unless one realized that earth’s density increases substantially with depth. (Even more unknown, the density increases more in localized "steps", rather than smoothly or linearly.) The density of seawater is about 1 g/cc, the density of soil is around 2.5 g/cc. Earth’s average density is almost 5.5 g/cc. At/or below the CMB, the density is estimated to be around 12-16 g/cc.

On the surface of the earth, the acceleration (or strength) is 9.81 m/sec², and it increases to about 10.69 m/sec² at 2,886 Km. down, at the CMB. That is rarely covered in most classes, and not generally known or talked-about. Proceeding further down, at the center, the strength of gravity is "0", or minimum. The standard Newtonian view is that acceleration continues increasing, all the way down, but at a slower and slower rate of increase.

This view comes from a neat little shortcut Newton used to calculate the strength of gravity. He "threw-away" the value of all mass above or outside-of the sphere as one proceeded towards the center, which allowed him to disregard the remaining mass.

A very good reason to suspect this mass-discarding technique might not be as valid as is conventionally thought-to-be is this: Imagine a ball, infinitely far away from the center of the earth’s mass. The net attraction to earth’s mass should be zero (or very close to zero). Now allow the attraction to be felt, and the ball accelerates towards earth at the standard Newtonian rate. Allow the ball to conveniently "fall" down a hollow shaft, towards the center of the earth, and continue accelerating. Conventional science believes that this acceleration will continue "all-the-way-down". Note: At the very center of earth’s mass, the ball has the SAME EXACT energy equivalence there that the ball had an infinite distance away from earth. (Yet science believes that energy was extracted out the whole way down!!!!) Something must be wrong with that picture, or gravity must be inconsistent. (HINT: Think of the M.C. Escher print, Waterfall, where the water continually flows in a loop, downhill, and continually powers a water-wheel in the process.)

The additional argument against the falling all the way to the center is simply the results of the experiment itself. If we carefully noted our results, in our experiment, the ball never did fall towards lesser curvature. Whenever the ball entered lesser curvature, it always returned on it’s own back towards greater curvature. Nature has "already" announced her hand, so to speak, and shown everyone her cards. Certainly, if this was a legal proceeding, the very notion of a "precedent" would almost mandate one and only one course of action.

The fact that most of earth’s scientists, geologists, physicists, mathematicians, and others who should know better have all signed-on for the "all-the-way-to-the-center" scenario will not dissuade "nature" from falling to MAXIMUM curvature, as shown in YOUR home experiment, and remaining there.

I strongly suspect that the mainstream of science will disregard the experiment as not relevant, or as not similar. THAT is why I designed this experiment with minimum equipment required, and with minimum expenses incurred, and presented it, as-is, to YOU, the home viewer. I don’t mind that you don’t believe me, I never ask you to believe me anywhere in this experiment. ALL I ask is that you DO the experiment, and reach YOUR OWN conclusions, not MINE, and not someone else’s.

You either will believe YOUR own experimental results, or you will not! You will either accept the results as a preview of what is to be expected at the MAXIMUM gravitational curvature, or you will not. The C-R theory is either right, or it is not. The critical thing is, here is an experiment that YOU can do for yourself, and reach a conclusion 180° different from what the majority of "experts" believes (without ever testing it, by the way), simply because Newton came-up with a formula a few hundred years ago. It may have been one of the supreme intellectual feats of the last millennium.

The small problem is, it may be totally wrong!! The experiment YOU just did is the reason to check it a little bit more thoroughly than to state, I KNOW it does it, so why test it? Need I remind you, the ideas about gravity proposed by Newton have NEVER BEEN CHECKED more than 7 or 8 miles down (in the ocean depths) and have not been checked by any means anywhere below the earth’s crust. They HAVE been supposed as true, and believed as true, and imagined as true, but NOT tested as true. There is a big difference between what scientists sometimes suppose things will do, and what those things do when actually tested.

I am of course familiar with Newton’s equations, and I know that they do work rather well in most above-ground situations, until you deal with either very high speed sub-atomic particles, or test the gravity in far-away places, under extravagant conditions never encountered on earth. Then one must switch to relativity to understand some of the fine points. The C-R theory contends that, to truly understand our universe, one must add-in curvature to fully appreciate how gravity works, and to understand some aspects of "How gravity behaves".

From conventional theory, one should be extremely suspicious if a ball can "fall" from as far away from earth as one can get (almost an infinite distance away) where curvature is "0", then fall all the way to earth’s surface, where gravity is 9.81 m/sec², then fall all the way below earth, clear through to the center (if a hollow path can be created), and end-up at a location where gravitational curvature is also again the minimum, or "0", and extract energy (or acceleration) all the way down. If this is not a perfect picture of a Perpetual Motion Machine, of getting something from nothing, I don’t know what is. The C-R theory has no problem with the ball falling to MAXIMUM curvature, or the Core Mantle Boundary (CMB), where gravity should be approx. 10.69 m/sec², but the C- R theory also expects the increase in the acceleration, once under the surface, will be substantially less. After reaching the MAXIMUM, the acceleration ceases, and deceleration begins. The ball must start re-surrendering the kinetic energy (the acceleration) it picked-up while falling to that point, and start slowing-down, preparing to return back to it’s minimum energy position. I know this line of reasoning or thinking is not common, and has not been evaluated or tested, much less debated.

A goal of the C-R theory is to show that curvature plays a very important part in creating or causing the gravity we do see, and gravity cannot be fully understood without understanding the part that curvature plays. If this can be realized, or started, then the C- R theory will have played it’s part.

Current mainstream science pays curvature "lip service", by acknowledging it’s presence, but then dismisses it as an "annoyance", and tries to figure-out what really happens. The C-R theory maintains that only by understanding and appreciating curvature can one fully understand how gravity works. Without this consideration, one WILL reach wrong conclusions, and be fooled. The experiment we just did gives a clear result EVERY time. Will YOU learn-from-it? Will you simply accept the Newtonian ideas because they have always seemed reasonable (and natural), without ever being tested anywhere near earth’s center. (or anywhere UNDER the MAXIMUM curvature location)

I would say that some of the biggest names in science have either written articles, books, or presented scenarios in their magazines where a ball or a person was dropped down a theoretical shaft through earth’s center. {It is tempting to single them out, but they are in good company. I will save trying to embarrass them until later, after some apparent success.} In all of those cases, the ball or the person never had a hang-up, or a suspected problem at the CMB, but sailed (and accelerated) clear down to the center of the earth, just as the Newtonian idea would have one believe. Sometimes the caveats would be added that the earth’s density would be averaged, or smoothed-out. Even this does not let them off the hook, since, in that case, the maximum curvature WOULD be at the surface of the earth. Then, the ball would never fall, it would hover, at MAXIMUM curvature, around the inside top of the shaft. HINT: If you find that hard to believe, wait about 20 some years. When humans next return to the moon, and remain there long enough to perform some simple experiments, they might find out that the C-R theory is true, and that, on the moon, the maximum curvature IS at the surface. That means, if a hole or shaft was dug down deep, they could do a very simple drop test, and see if the ball would indeed drop down. I know of no other theory which claims that the ball would not fall down, there, to the bottom of the shaft or well. On the moon, the density does not increase substantially, (or more than quadruple) with depth. This means that within 20 or so years, the C-R theory might either be vindicated, or will still be laughed-at, but it can be tested in at least one simple part. UNNOTICED ANECDOTE: The Apollo astronauts had great problems with moon dust getting into nearly everything, and being pesky to get rid-of. Now I understand the reason. On the moon, gravity will not assist in shaking or pulling-loose the dust, downward. The gravitational curvature is already at the maximum value at the surface of the moon, and dust has no incentive to "fall". The simple static-cling, or van-der-waals forces will therefore dominate, and the dust cannot simply-be shaken off. (I did not recognize this back then, as it was well before I had come-up with the C-R theory. I did not even realize this until several years ago, and this blog is the first-time I remember commenting on this phenomenon specifically.)

I hope this blog helps the home viewer/reader a bit more to realize the real uniqueness of this experiment. It is one of the few, clear differences, where some part of the C-R theory can actually be put to the test, and demonstrate something not suspected by mainstream science. The experiment is far from actual proof, but it should serve as a warning that there may be much more complexity hidden in plain sight, and by realizing the situation (rather than studying the formulas), some new insight might be gained. If you do not accept the C-R theory’s ideas, and still cling to mainstream thinking, you have that right to think-so, and I respect one who accepts (with tenacity) that which they have been taught.

My personal view is, rather than "opposing" everyone, the C-R theory is "leading the pack" in recognition of curvature’s ability to explain what is going-on in this universe. Mainstream science will catch-on, and learn this within the next 50 years, but the process is slow, and they cling to their current ideas. Once they catch-up, they will then be able to contribute further to our mutual understanding. Up until then, it will be necessary to "endure" some ridicule and disbelief. Some may be well-earned, too, but it might take time to find-out the difference. I will try diligently to point-out the many areas where I believe the C-R theory has positive contributions to make, and where legitimate phenomenon occur that conventional theory does not explain well.

Thank you for reading this, and thanks for considering the C-R theory as the potential theory of your choice when choosing a theory YOU will use to understand our universe. If you choose not to accept it for now, you are better informed for the future, and you might remember the C-R theory’s ideas on what to look-for and what to consider. If that occurs, then I’ve made progress in helping you to come-around to the C- R theory way-of-thinking.

I do believe that, if I could get 100 people to take the C-R theory seriously, and to help understand it, to help look for new areas of relevance, to apply the C-R thinking to known phenomenon, progress will "snowball". Up until that time, I will try to use every trick at my disposal, and use everything I’ve learned to evaluate the C-R theory, and tout it’s usefulness. If I discover that I’m wrong, I will try to find some alternative theory (or combinations of them) that can also help enlighten us all. If I can inform you of new areas you’ve never noticed, I believe that will ultimately help us all.

If you do have difficulty in understanding any of these concepts, feel free to write in to me. I do expect readers will have difficulty, as I’m trying to explain new concepts using existing language, or without using too many exclusive new terms. I had to "invent" the terms for the two internal parts of the Black-Hole ^C-R, the Active Zone ^C-R and the Neutral Zone ^C-R, but other than that, I have tried using existing terms.

Feel free to take advantage of all of the free videos we’ve made available on YouTube. I have tried to keep them short and not too boring, but to informally "converse" with the viewer as I would with any individual I talked-to. I figure that if I keep explaining the same items in different ways, over and over, that some viewers will eventually catch-on, and start to understand what I’m saying. Even if you don’t understand my new ideas, I try to honestly share where I think current theories have weaknesses or flaws.

If you have returned to the C-R theory web-site over 5 times, I would like to talk to you. I want people to understand these items, and I want to help you learn the C-R theory way of thinking. If you choose to reject it afterwards, that is fine. What I am trying to avoid is those who reject these ideas before they hear about them. I do realize that the C-R theory ideas are different, and they have had to reject many beliefs common to most current theories. I try to explain WHY that was done, and what the benefits are of doing so.

If you have read the blog, but have not yet visited the C-R theory home page, please do so. I also have the Completely Recycling theory for international readers, who might not understand the more subtle intentional humor in the Comedy Recycling theory. I am working on a new revision to the Completely Recycling theory, and I hope to present that on-line a bit later this year. I now have a bank of over 20 on-line videos I can refer-to, to help illustrate the concepts I’m talking-about.

Last modified Sept. 7, 2009

Blog for the day, or new item, Fishtank Physics: Why thermodynamics, the study of a glorified fishtank (with accurate measurements, and accounting for energy losses) is the ultimate, "Think-inside-the-box" type-of thinking. [Unimaginative]

To this, the C-R theory says, no wonder they won’t appreciate, understand or conceive-of the ideas needed to restore entropy created exclusively within the C-R theory. Only by exploiting the properties of the Neutral Zone ^C-R can physics someday hope to see how this universe restores entropy, and why our universe hasn’t "run out-of steam", so to speak. (There could be other ways, too, but none nearly as simple, and easy to understand.)

With the understanding of the work-energy contained within steam, and the desire to recover or use ALL of the practical amount, or as much as was physically possible to extract, the science of thermodynamics was born. Eventually, after extensive trials and tests, they realized that there was a limit to the practical amount of work that could be extracted from any amount of energy, and that depended upon the temperature differences (or energy concentrations) between the two ends. The bigger the difference, the more that could be extracted, the lesser the difference, the less that could be practically achieved (even if the energy WAS abundant, if it was too concentrated, i.e., couldn’t be "moved" to an area of lesser temperatures) energy could not be efficiently extracted.

Eventually, scientists arrived at the "second law" of thermodynamics, that energy always goes downhill, or entropy (the measure of disorder within a system) increases with time. That the C-R theory has proposed to overcome that limitation, by using the properties of the Neutral Zone ^C-R, an exclusive outer part of a C-R theory "brand-name" Black-Hole ^C-R, has not yet been accepted as "believable" by mainstream science. {Reference note: The Neutral Zone ^C-R is the portion of every Black-Hole ^C-R where matter and energy are contained at an escape velocity "Above the speed-of-light"} The C-R theory does maintain, that, by design, the Neutral Zone ^C-R either: A, Does not obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or B, cannot obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (There would be subtle differences in POSSIBILITIES and abilities, I will not discuss them at this time.)

At some later time, scholars could debate whether: The Neutral Zone ^C-R is exempt from the second law (by a legal loophole, i.e., since there is no "time" within a Neutral Zone ^C-R), or, the second law is not a law, but something less, as it only applies to Active Zones ^C-R, areas which do obey the second law. {Those areas where electromagnetic energy, or light, is active.}

The real question, or observation, is: If our universe is infinitely old (by the C-R theory hypothesis), and not just freshly-started at a big bang, then why does our universe have any energy at all, why isn’t it "run-downhill", energy-wise? Answer: This universe practically recycles matter and energy, and is particularly GOOD at it {really, more like excellent-plus some}. {I will not "scientifically" discuss whether or not "It has direct help" {from a Creator, or more specifically, The Creator}, because science cannot yet prove it, or test it with any degree of rigor, much less objectivity}. HINT: A well tended garden shows evidence of it’s tending, vs. a garden with evidence of complete abandonment or long-neglect. One simply KNOWS the difference between the two ends of those extremes. Caution needs to be exercised in the middle, though. An unattended garden (where the gardener is on a break) may look better than a tended garden, where the gardener had been away quite a while but is there, now.

Technically, mainstream science has carefully observed and measured a "glorified fishtank" and decided that that tank is a suitable model for the behavior of everything in the universe (as in The Second LAW of Thermodynamics). While their intentions are benign (if not quite admirable), the results simply do not apply (as "observed". HINT: Seen and measured under "light-speed-allowed" circumstances). Since the Neutral Zone ^C-R simply cannot be "observed" under any circumstances, this AUTOMATICALLY invalidates the conclusions derived therefrom. (meaning: It doesn’t apply!!!)

That is why the C-R theory believes it has achieved an insight based-upon situation based reasoning, where simple formulas, or observations cannot apply. It is a method not nearly-as-often used to success as might be possible. (It should be tried more regularly.)

An improved video version of: An Experiment ANYONE can do at Home, is nearly ready. It should appear within the next two weeks. If this does not significantly challenge your thinking, and raise a few eyebrows in the process, then I’ve failed. On the other hand, I hope at least some readers/viewers out there will take-up my challenge, and repeat that experiment for themselves, which can easily and cheaply be done at home {or anywhere else}. If you pay close attention, and LISTEN to what I’m saying, you may well be amazed, astounded, confused, and skeptical. If you can simply dismiss it, you’ve missed the point entirely. I will prepare a blog to be posted after the experiment is posted on-line, to follow-up on the ideas and claims I make in that video. To those few who do check it out, you may find-out something NEW which has been "Hidden-in-plain-sight" for at least 80 years.

Although the experiment has been done many times before, I intend to show YOU readers/viewers at home something new, and previously unnoticed and unconsidered. A new way to look-at the experiment, and a new viewpoint to consider.

Both the Comedy-Recycling theory and the Big Bang theory are looking for the best answers, and the simplest answers, and both clearly wish to understand our universe better. Both are using different methods, and looking in different places to search for answers. One of those two seems to be confounded by every new development, and "only" needs about 7 anomalies to make it almost work. The other one simply accepts what is seen, but understands those things much differently. Hopefully, time will tell which one is a better choice.

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