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