Welcome to the 41,000th visitor.  Just the other day, the web-site had its 41,000th visitor to the home page, and we’ve been getting as many as 800 visitors in an extraordinary week, and around 600 visitors a week, lately, to all portions of the site.

      I will try to let the native humorist in me loose for an upcoming April Fool’s Day version of the blog.  I have held-off from the comedy part of the Comedy-Recycling theory for quite a while, and I would like to let loose the punster at least once a year, if possible.  It is also the Jester’s favorite day of the year (my icon for the humorous part of the C-R theory).

      I would like to address one of my favorite topics, and one often misinterpreted by some of the home readers.  I would like to re-visit many of the basics, and try to re-describe them to new visitors.

      I would like to point out that, only the C-R theory is bold enough, and self-convinced enough to predict many new, very specific items about the operation of a Black-Hole ^C-R, the non-generic black hole specifically predicted by the C-R theory.  Having noticed this trend now for over 30 years, and finding as much “known-about” information publicly available as I now know exists, I have a very high level of confidence in the path the C-R theory has taken.  Unfortunately, mainstream science is still plodding-away, towards the twin darknesses, (both dark energy AND dark matter), and looking to those FICTIONAL ideas for their answers.

      Briefly, I would advise new home-readers that science simply forgot to try to rule-out electromagnetic energy, consisting of electrical current flows, and intense magnetic fields, before they hopped-aboard the “dark-matter bandwagon”. {Previous blogs did already cover this point-of-view.} Where I hope to go with this current blog is to flesh-out my ideas about the system inside our universe, and discuss the role that Black-Holes ^C-R have in this universe, into the mix.

      Again, the term Black-Holes ^C-R refers to ONLY C-R theory obeying [ brand-name, or trademarked ^tm-like unique items, different enough to be “protected” or identified as special] black holes.  I also covered this special term in my last blog, but mention it again, before I start-in to this month’s topic.

      NEW, and UNIQUE ideas from the C-R theory:

      The Black-Hole ^C-R is so special, in that it sets-up itself for “success” in recovery of matter that has been consumed, rather than failure, as it’s [theoretical, generic] competitors, black holes that collapse fully into a singularity at their center.  Mainstream science maintains that: What enters into a generic black hole, stays inside a generic black hole.

      The C-R theory EXPECTS that, if a true singularity actually existed inside a black hole, at the center, the gravity felt outside that black hole should decrease substantially as the mass inside increased!! The reason to suspect so is that there would exist a wide “forbidden-zone-like” gap between the central-singularity, and the outside real-world.  As this zone got wider, and that gap increased, whatever gravitons (proposed, or theoretical carriers of the gravitational force) emerged across that gap should diminish, as the coupling-out efficiency of the graviton count would decrease, falling-off with increasing distance-out (measured from the center), and the graviton-receiving mass.

      NOTE: The C-R theory states that this decrease in efficiency DOES NOT HAPPEN, but only because a totally different, and quite indirect mechanism is used to produce gravity. (That idea is covered elsewhere in the C-R theory.)

       Mainstream science also ASSUMES that, as 3 of the 4 known forces have all been reconciled into one (partially-complete?) theory, that gravity will also be reconcilable with those forces, and that ALL 4 forces, (of 4) will behave EXACTLY the same way, after coming out from the inside of a generic black hole.

      Where the C-R theory differs: the C-R theory proposes that gravity-alone is produced indirectly, and is, technically, an after-effect, rather than a true “force”, on the same, equal footing with electromagnetism, the strong force, and the weak (or electro-weak) force.  There is a very simple experiment any home-reader can perform in their own home (or anywhere else) which may actually show this idea in action.  It is not the only reason for the C-R theory’s confidence, but is part of the data to choose.

      I will not attempt to prove the concept here, but simply review it, to make the claims, and to suggest some questions the home reader may wish to ponder or discuss further.

       The original concept, the one that started the C-R theory idea is this: Why is gravity felt outside of a Black-Hole ^C-R? [NOTE: This was before the need for the term Black-Hole ^C-R was known, but I am NOW trying to show, (here), that there is STILL a need the this new concept.]

      If you have never been troubled by this question, I would suggest: You should be!!! If heat and light cannot make it out from a Black-Hole ^C-R, should not gravity also be “trapped inside”? If gravitons can only travel at the speed-of-light, why to they seem-to emanate-out undisturbed, or undiminished in strength?

      Unless the reader retorts back, but what if gravitons can travel “faster-than-the-speed-of-light”?, there is this provision.  If the speed of gravitons is anything less than infinite, there should come some speed limit where they still would become trapped inside, if they only emerged from an origin, out-of a singularity at the center.  If the speed of gravity was infinite, then the theory of relativity must be wrong in at least that one aspect.

      I will admit that the C-R theory’s initial ideas focused-on eliminating the singularity, totally.  In that aspect, the C-R theory is still unapologetic: There is NO singularity now, and there never has been one.

      Since I have discussed it elsewhere, I will merely mention again that, part of the rejection of the singularity-idea, was the recycling of the same-type of idea where science, just-after 1900, overcame the Ultraviolet Catastrophe, by showing that the electron was forced to limit it’s radiation-away of energy to discreet steps, or quanta. Otherwise, classical mechanics invoked Maxwell’s equations to claim that the electron, as a moving electrical charge, should have been expected to continually radiate-away it’s energy.  This was because a moving electrical charge was expected to continually radiate away energy.  Every orbiting electron should-have dropped ALL-of it’s energy, and collapsed into the proton, within 1/5 of a second.  This should have limited matter to “only neutrons” everywhere.

      Fortunately for our world at large, this Ultraviolet Catastrophe never happened. Quantum mechanics saved matter in this universe from a “predicted” total collapse into a neutron: very similar to the expected collapse into a singularity that science expects already occurs NOW, in every case, inside, at the center of every [conventional] black hole.

      If one understands gravitational curvature, from the C-R theory, it “influences” matter, to warp, or curve it into a lowered-energy configuration.  It is this action that effectively changes matter “almost*” everywhere in this universe.  (*At the exact center of the universe, there is no net influence from curvature, because any influence is zero-summed, or canceled-out**. {**If there is additional matter, outside of this universe, some level of additional curvature is still possible at the center of our universe.  NOTE: This exception was not in my original reasoning, and took me 15-20 years to realize the oversimplification of my original thoughts.  I consider this an oversight error, and not an invalidation of the original idea.  I wanted to generalize my concepts, and be more inclusive of a wider range of possibilities.} This topic of “extra-universal” matter may deserve a future blog of it’s own, to elaborate on it.)

      Now, I will delve into my intended blog subject, the overall concept of the use (and role) of the Black-Hole ^C-R in this universe.

      Part of the C-R theory ideas is that the Black-Hole ^C-R accomplishes, for this universe, something like what the scavenger does for the African savannah.  It helps dispose-of expended, worn-out matter, and loose, stray, light.  The Black-Hole ^C-R then concentrates them in such a condition that they cannot “radiate-away” their energy, but are forced into a condition {the Neutral Zone ^C-R} where they must concentrate-back into an energetic mix, with explosive potential not accounted for by conventional science.

      The simple, elegant part of this is: The Black-Hole ^C-R does so by exploiting it’s very nature, using the most important attribute (total, saturated gravity) that ONLY it possesses.  In a creatively simple manner, the Black-Hole ^C-R takes protons, neutrons, and electrons, picks-over them BY MASS, always rejecting almost all electrons, and consumes the protons and neutrons.

      The real surprise here is what happens next.  NOTE: This is something science does not suspect, AND DOES NOT ACCEPT. (but, it happens anyway) Immediately inside the Black-Hole ^C-R, there is a volume of spacetime where the most extreme conditions matter can encounter occur).  What the C-R theory proposes is that, in this Neutral Zone ^C-R, every possible interaction, or real-time event, is simply turned-off.

      To illustrate, if I tied-up your hands tightly behind your back, then commanded you to applaud wildly, you would be prevented from doing so by your “storage conditions”. Well, what if matter (and energy too) also face such an extreme of storage-inconvenience.  Because the escape velocity is also “above the speed-of-light” ALL electromagnetic interactions are turned-off, prevented, invalidated, made impossible.

      What is really great about this is, it is the MOST SIMPLE answer possible, and the easiest to understand.  We all can understand that if I put you in a condition where you are physically unable to do some action, you are prevented from doing what you would normally do, when you were asked.

      What is needed is: The most extreme gravitational influence possible, a place of “escape-proof” confinement, and matter and energy involuntarily trapped.  Then, to compliment that, we have matter completely ionized, but held in a suspended state of confinement.

      Notice that only the Black-Hole ^C-R stores up, in a highly-concentrated form the only known force that CAN overcome, or overwhelm gravity, if and when it is allowed to become active again.  This gives the C-R theory-obeying Black-Holes ^C-R a competitive advantage in practical-usefulness, and allows nature to recycle valuable contents in spectacularly cataclysmic events, like novas, supernovas, hypernovas, Seyfert galaxies, Active Galactic Nucleus (AGN’s), quasars, and gamma ray bursts (GRB’s).

      There is a free web site where I have found a chart from a 3,000 year old supernova remnant in the Large Magellanic Cloud, that displays the still-high level of multi-positive levels of ionizations.  If this supernova remnant has been expanding and cooling for at least 3,000 years, one would not expect this level of ionization still going strong. There may be many more like it, but this is one I have found that is readily accessible, for free.

      NOTE: The authors of the article might object to my using it to claim some support for the C-R theory, but the article is publicly available, and is in a form acceptable to mainstream science.  I use it to bring attention to some of the C-R theory’s claims, that information is supportive, or at least available to look-at.  At least 31 ionizations greater than +5 are featured in the chart on the third page of this article.

      My point is that there is considerable evidence for a large amount of magnetic fields and electrical currents, in almost every direction we look.  If these items were not there, I would be much more sheepish in pushing the C-R theory’s claims.

      This offers an opportunity to the home reader, to look for additional evidence, not “spoon-fed to you, by me”, but that you can find independently.  If you find nothing else, be suspicious of my examples; but if you find many articles with similar findings, it is probably not due to my fictional writing, but is an indication of something BIG that science has missed.

      What I am trying to do is to suggest a logical pathway, suggest a likely outcome, show you where one might look to find items in the available public literature, and then let you judge if my hypothesis is reasonable.

      I would also like to assert that ONLY the C-R theory has been publicly BOLD enough to claim a logical scenario for a practical, ecological use for Black-Holes ^C-R, and to share it with the general public.  I remember reading a short story by Isaac Asimov, called The Last Question, where a robot considered: Is there any way to reverse entropy? I never suspected that it might occur to me to be the first to suggest a simple and practical way to do so, using basic principles, and the given properties of our special Black-Holes ^C-R (and not just any generic black holes).

      While I do not expect anyone to fully accept this new idea at first reading, I at least want to get the idea discussed, offered as a possibility, and to show what to expect, where to look, what phenomena to notice, and WHY it makes sense, from nature’s point-of-view.  I also maintain that this did not happen by randomly-evolved accident, but was part of an ingenious master plan, pre-designed and set-up well ahead-of-time, by an intelligent Creator.  While I cannot prove that, I consider this possibility just impressive-enough to freely share it with anyone who will listen.

      I offer to home readers the opportunity to investigate some of this for themselves, and see if you can find more evidence for, or ANY evidence against this notion.  If that idea is wrong, I certainly want to know that too, so I can look elsewhere.  If I had not found seemingly at least 100 randomly detected items over the last 30 years, each one contributing more support for the general idea, I probably would have posted this idea anonymously, if at all.

      I am not trying so much to take credit for the idea, but merely to present it as a reasonable hypothesis.  I believe I have been allowed to discover (or uncover) the idea, as much because I would present it publicly, rather than the circumstance where I labored for a full- lifetime of careful and diligent study and then came to this conclusion. I had been considering just such a question, about the universe and the potential role of (generic) black holes beforehand (in late 1978).  It may have been more by luck, happenstance, or serendipity, or even due to a simple but sincere request for understanding (again, in late 1978), rather than my genius, my abilities, or my contributions, that sprung-open the trap door to understanding, when these ideas spilled-out into a plausible package, and my “AHA-light” turned-on.  I simply understood the general process, involving Black-Holes ^C-R, as a complete package, and everything just fit-into place.

      My ideas have been smoothed-out and filled-in, and polished-up over the last 30-some years, as I witnessed the findings from space.  I believe I understand the process even better now, and I have years of phenomena to support my suspicions.  If the items that seem-to support the C-R theory hypothesis were not there, I never would have published these ideas to the web, with my name attached.

      I consider myself very fortunate to have the C-R theory’s guidance, showing me ever increasing support for “these crazy thoughts”.  My goal with these blogs is now to see if I can impart to others a similar sense of purpose, a reasonableness to what is seen, and a guide to how to think about the universe at hand.

      If you do not start to sense an overall pattern, a consistency of outcome, a repetitive nature to high currents, magnetic fields, excess electrons, positive ionization-driven energy-release events, polarized light patterns, warm gas flows, and plasma-driven phenomena, just read the weekly magazines and the monthly periodicals, the PBS and Discovery (or Science) Channel shows, and you should sense something.  If mainstream science understood what was going on, or anticipated events like these, they are strangely silent about it.

      If my descriptions of phenomena do not excite you, and suggest to you to seriously consider the C-R theory’s findings, I hope you will keep these things I mention in mind. If you can find a better (or simpler, or more-logical) explanation for them, please let me know, too.

      If the C-R theory ideas do not seem too radical and outlandish to you initially, they should.  If I can just get you to look for these type-of items, to apply a C-R theory based logic to what is seen, and get you to appreciate the usefulness, I will understand if you are not convinced, and reject these ideas.  I need individuals to think along these NEW lines of reasoning, especially the younger generation, who have not yet made-up their mind against the C-R theory pathways, before they consider other competing ideas.

      If readers have questions, comments, or concerns, please use the contact the author form at the top of the home-page to reach me.

      I will try to prepare more blogs, re-addressing many-of the most basic C-R theory ideas, and attempting once again to show readers the overall simplicity of these ideas. I would also invoke Occams’ razor, or the principle that the simplest overall mechanism is most likely to be correct.  If you can find a simpler, more complete idea-package anywhere else, go with it.  If not, please try to use the C-R theory.

      If you still disagree with me, that is your right.  If my arguments do not convince you now, I trust that they will continue to resonate with you favorably, over time.  If it takes 5 or 10 years to win you over, or even longer, that is still progress.  If your arguments against it are sound-enough, and you can convince me that I am wrong, I will start looking elsewhere, too.

      I thank you for dropping-by and visiting.  If I can help your thinking, or suggest new items that never occurred to you before, that is part of my goal.  If you can switch-over your thinking to a more pro-C-R-theory viewpoint, I will accept that as progress.  If these ideas are wrong, the available data should give many clues to us all, that the C-R pathways are not occurring.

      That I know-of, no other theory claims anything like a C-R theory pathway, although some sites do use similar items for some of their agenda.  I am still open to possible better explanations of some items by other’s reasonings.  If I find better explanations, which convince me of their usefulness or correctness, I will try to share those, too.

      Please feel free to recommend this site to others, if you find it useful to you.  If you are not convinced, but still enjoy some of my arguments, I appreciate your consideration.  If you think I am completely wrong, but wish to use the C-R theory to illustrate that line of reasoning to others, I will accept that too.

      When I posed my original questions about black holes, I would not have accepted any of these ideas at the start.  I state that so that I can be empathetic with those who cannot, for now, accept this new reasoning.  I know where you are coming-from (at least, in part).  It took me many years to come-around to a new way of thinking about Black-Holes ^C-R, and refine these ideas.

      It is still possible that there are lines of reasoning that I have not considered, or objections that I cannot overcome, or that something new will prove some-of these ideas dead wrong.  That I am aware-of, there are none I have deliberately hidden, swept-under-the-rug, or covered-up.  It is always possible that any home-reader will find a truly fatal flaw that I cannot brush-off.  If one exists, I may even find it myself, when I think of new ways to explain my ideas to you.

      If you can take away anything new and positive (for you) from this theory, that is also part of my goal.  My theories are my “hobbies”, and I do everything I do for them because it is still “fun” for me, and not drudgery.  I have gotten enormous satisfaction from the C-R ideas, in helping me to personally understand what I think I see.  If they assist you too, or provide some satisfaction level to you, too, that is also intended.

      If I cannot change your mind, and you are totally opposed to these ideas, and you are sincere in your beliefs, I can respect that, too.  I knew before posting these ideas that they were too radical, too different, and there were too many needed changes to be an “easy-sell”.  Even if this theory is 100% correct in all of it’s ideas, it could take 50-500 more years before science fully catches-up.  I am willing to pay that price, and be thought-of as a fool by some, if that is what it takes to present these views.

      Although I can suggest where to test these ideas, and where to look, we (humanity) cannot just go “there” and test these ideas “there”.  Part of putting these ideas on-line is the possibility that some creative reader will instantly grasp some concept that can immediately be tested, in a totally new way.  Possibly, future space missions can design experiments to more directly test some of the C-R theory’s new ideas.

      As with all science, these ideas ARE right, or, they ARE wrong (or combinations of each).  If they fail the test of time, that is often the fate of most new theories.  If I can shed light on issues that should be considered, then this will have been useful.

      There is too much NEW information here, on this web-site, to digest in one sitting. Expect to need to re-visit this site multiple times to take advantage of the new concepts unique to the C-R theory.

      If I were trying to sell you this information for a high price, I would be very suspicious.  As this is my hobby, I am overjoyed to share these ideas freely, without charge.  Critics might say, it is only worth what you pay for it.  I give these ideas freely to anyone who will consider them.  If they provide you with anywhere near the joy and fulfillment they have given me, then, please pass them on to others too.

      If you do not find these ideas and discussions useful, I hope you will find what you are looking-for elsewhere.  I would also agree, science is not supposed to work this way, but the C-R theory is too nice, and seems to fit too well, to simply throw it back and try again.

Jerry A. Reynard February 29, 2012

Another Fantastic “gift” for the C-R Theory, from NASA

[an item about the Lunar ionosphere], but first:

      Welcome to our 40,000^th visitor to the home page, and still counting.  Many more have visited the other parts of this web-site, too, without always visiting the home page. I hope you all find what you are looking-for, right here, at the C-R theories.

      I was recently looking over a review of last year’s findings (for 2011), and noticed an item that only the C-R theory could appreciate, and welcome “with open arms”. Apparently, some scientists have known about this for many years, but the item was news to me, [although not as surprising as others have felt at this news].

      NASA just announced a new theory from one of their scientists about why the lunar ionosphere exists. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2011/14nov_lunarionosphere/ While the C-R theory does not necessarily agree with this new theory, it is gratified to see mention that some scientists have apparently known for years that there was an ionosphere on the moon.  Another article, I will link to http://www.isas.ac.jp/publications/report/678/67803.html also mentioned that this lunar ionosphere existed some 10's of km. above the moon’s surface.  It also mentioned that from 500, up to 1000 extra electrons, per cc [or cm³] surround positively charged particles of moondust.  (If one does the math, for the large number of potential cc’s and km’s involved, there should be alot-of-em.)

      Elsewhere, an article stated that the Soviet Luna 19 and 22 missions also detected this lunar ionosphere, back when they were operating.

      I also found an article about similarities to Mars’ ionosphere.  At least Mars had a thin atmosphere to support the zone with electrons.  This indicates that the ionosphere is not just a “local” problem with the moon, but has something in common with other planets, too.

      Since the moon is not supposed to have any (significant) atmosphere at all, the scientists were surprised that our moon still had a discernable ionosphere.  One of the articles promised science would provide more updates within the next 40 years.

      While this news that there was an ionosphere on the moon is “tolerated” by some theories, I would say that only the C-R theories would “warmly welcome this phenomenon into the pro-C-R theories family”.

      I know of no other theory which has advocated as strongly for any evidence supporting the presence of excess electrons as publicly as the C-R theory.  While this does not necessarily “prove” the C-R theory’s ideas are right, it is a nice bit of supporting phenomenon that no other theory “wants, needs, or appreciates”.

      While I’m sure NASA did not have the C-R theory in mind when announcing this lunar ionosphere, I tend to regard it “as a gift” to only the C-R theory, and kind-of “an annoying pest”, to every other theory.

      The article announced that one of their scientists had a new theory to explain some of the lunar ionosphere’s properties, by having moondust ionized by ultraviolet light, then eventually lodging in the ionosphere.  It was thought that the dust would explain some atmospheric glow-like phenomena noticed by the original astronauts. That theory did not provide a good explanation for the electrons, however, which is where the C-R theory might be helpful.

      While I have not yet seen anything stating the total estimated quantity of electrons involved, it probably is less than the “up-to 5 million amperes (each second)” of flux-tube currents flowing between Jupiter and Io.  With known auroras on most planets and even on some moons with atmospheres in the solar system, science should find a harder time denying that there is “something electrical” going-on just about everywhere we look, nearby.  Lightning and thunderstorms also feature prominently in planet’s weather systems.

      Just last year, a planet-circling storm on Saturn showed a persistence and a fierceness unseen before.  The March 2012 Astronomy magazine mentions on page #19, that the storm enveloped over 2 billion square miles, or over 5 billion square kilometers in Saturn’s northern hemisphere.  NASA’s Cassini spacecraft provided the details.

      Since the energy that Saturn gets from the sun’s light is considerably weaker than on Earth, due to the increased distance, could an abundance of electrons be part of the cause of the violent thunderstorms?

      Another item of interest last year was the discovery of at least 6 “Y” class white-dwarf stars, with some having surface temperatures of “a balmy 80° F”.  If space itself was not so hostile, one could *almost place your lawn chair on the surface, and be comfortable. [*Readers, please do not attempt to do so, outer space is still too dangerous for recreational suntan purposes, much less white-dwarf surfaces.]

      I would venture to say that those tepid temperatures would tend to minimize any possible energy contribution by ongoing fusion reactions as the ultimate temperature source.

      In a similar vein, a new star was seen to have spiral arms.  While many galaxies were known featuring spiral arms, this was the first known individual star to have such a feature clearly displayed.  Here again, I would like to point out that such a feature seems much less possible for a fusion-powered star, where gravity must first gather enough hydrogen gas to the center, (to get the fusion started), than for some other potential energy producing method, [like: Black-Hole ^C-R powered], not needing a critical mass to be gathered-up to initiate fusion.

      It is possible that greater insights might be gained in the planetary-generating process, if further pictures of stars like this become available for study.  Time-sequence shots will likely prove quite beneficial, too, for information about planet-building.

      Yet another recent item was from the Voyager satellites, now exiting the sun’s protective bubble, (the heliopause) and encountering the raw magnetic fields thought to be present in true interstellar space.  These have been more varied, and more turbulent, than were expected. http://www.space.com/13824-nasa-voyager-spacecraft-interstellar-space.html

For 2012:

      My overall goal in the C-R theory is to show visitors some new items, and have them reconsider how science understands several key phenomena, especially Black-Holes ^C-R , gravity, and our entire universe.  I do apologize that I could not simply use all of the pre-existing concepts, and then build upon them, but had to (very) reluctantly discard some (way too many, in the expert’s opinions), to make-for a better overall fit.

      If you start out disagreeing with all, or many of the ideas here, that is expected.  If it takes you several visits to warm-up to these new ideas, and start to understand why they simply work better, and give a more human-friendly path to your reasoning, using new concepts not available anywhere else, that is expected, too.

      I can easily sympathize with those who cannot accept these new ideas, as I came from their perspective originally.  In my case, an original line of new reasoning led me down a different path, and I was able to gain new insight (for me, at least), and I believe that I now understand what I could not realize back then.  That is why I can empathize with those who have not accepted these ideas, as I can understand your perplexity; but I also think I found a new and better way to understand what you are actually looking-for, even if you do not know it, yet.

      I would urge you to temporarily accept these ideas, for argument’s sake, (without rejecting them first), then take them out for a test drive, get the feel of their power, and evaluate them after a brief trial period.  If you do not accept these ideas, they will remain as “foolishness” to you.  If you insist on holding-on to a list of Newtonian views, you WILL certainly reject the newer ones.  I try to treat you incoming readers more-as pre-realizers, rather than condemn you (by the C-R theory’s standards) as unworthy.

      If I did not feel that I gained true, unique, and useful insights from them, I would have left you alone, and kept these thoughts to myself, for my own use.  I am excited by yet another opportunity to share these ideas in this continuing series of blogs.  What I think I know (now), is what I never even suspected, before I adopted the C-R theory as my own.  If I can convey to you some of the concepts that I think I have found-out, and I am not just inventing something fake, to lead you astray, then I might help some-of-you to understand, or at least, start-to-consider a new pathway to understand the problems, and a new solution, to gravity.  The C-R theory also uses new approaches to radically change [and ultimately, simplify] how you “see” our universe.

      Let me say, I never anticipated that I might gain insights that have eluded others, and I cannot rule-out some special “help from above”, but I cannot prove it, either.  I can state that I now have a reasonable degree of confidence I have significant understandings that you will never independently discover.  This is less due to “my brilliance”, than to the haphazard and convoluted steps that it took, {or that nature led me thru}, which are quite unlikely to ever be repeated independently.

      See for yourselves if the C-R theory ideas are not simpler, and more direct to understand, and more fulfilling than the competition.  If it takes you 5 to 10 years to switch sides, it will be worth it.  If you cannot accept it, maybe I can still provide you with new ways to look at other old ideas.

      If C-R’s critics say, but science is not supposed to be like this, I would heartily agree.  BUT, since I have these answers now, I am not throwing them back into an abyss, to try my “luck” again.  If I cannot fire-up your sense of curiosity, and pique your interest here, let me encourage you to try again (for something better?), elsewhere.  If you will not try-to accept some new concepts, you simply will fail to make the required connections.  If you will let me, I will try to impart to you, (with considerably less grief than it initially took me), a new set of pathways.

      If you can accept my sense of humor, please enjoy the Comedy-Recycling theory. If you are from another country, and do not fully understand the potential comic twists and puns and potential that the English language is capable of, please use the Completely-Recycling theory to review my ideas.

      Thank you for visiting, and stopping by.

      If you have questions, or have topics you would like me to discuss (C-R Theory related ones, mostly), please feel free to write in.  You can click on the Contact the Author banner on the top of the homepage.

      P.S., we may soon start a discussion topic corner (or board) where home readers can post topics for discussion, or join-in.

      I have just renewed my web-hosting arrangement for this site, and I have upgraded to a higher level of service, greater on-site storage capacity, and the newest-available web-server potential methods for you to download the information stored here.  If I can get busy, and create new items, I would like to feature more training materials, too.

      It is also possible that we might have a link-to recommendation site, where home readers can link to interesting sites which have some relevance to the C-R theory related items, pro or con, or do a particularly good job of explaining a topic.

      I would like to spend some time this year, going over many of the basic items where the C-R theory has differences from almost all of the conventional sources.  Since there are no other places where you home readers can obtain these details, I try hard to re-explain them in new manners, hoping that each time I do, more readers can catch on to the truely vast scope of the changes needed, and to try again to explain just how different the C-R theory is.

      When I understood just where science probably went wrong (although they do not know it yet), there were specific areas where the C-R theory needed to change.  They are not random, capricious or arbitrary, but were mandated by the new realizations of how nature might work.  I can state that I had no agenda at the start, before I ever had this theory.  I never set-out to write any theory, either.  I simply wanted to know how nature worked.

      I had always assumed that I might walk down the aisles of a library, and find an obscure book from years-ago, that no-one had ever heard of (or that modern science had forgotten about) from long-ago, and I would find an answer that made sense to me, and would explain something, or give me good insight into the modern world.

      Writing a new theory was the last thing I had ever intended to do.  It never occurred to me that I might “stumble over” a simple, NEW idea, that would lead me into a whole-new way of thinking about how Black-Holes ^C-R work.  Even then, it was quite a while before I intended to write something major* about this new way of thinking. (*I did typewrite about 10 pages on the new ideas shortly after my first insights, to share with friends, in 1979.  I had no good way, back then to make those ideas public.)

      It was probably 5 years after my initial thoughts, when I first realized that I would need a NEW way to describe a Black-Hole ^C-R, or to specify something different-enough about one (but without trying to come-up with a totally new name for one).  I ultimately decided to add the superscripted, hyphenated ^C-R after a capitalized, hyphenated Black-Hole, something like a “trademarked” item with a ^tm superscript afterward, but without the “financial” exclusivity.  Even though the term is ALMOST the same (as a black hole), it is intended to describe a specific item, with very real differences.

      If I can ever “train” the world into recognizing the differences, and to start-to appreciate the real benefits of using the C-R theory’s pathway [or now: theories’ pathways, for both versions], this term still is “comfortable-enough” to sound the same, like something we are already familiar-with.  It is not that I enjoy taking the effort into adding the superscripted ^C-R, every time, but I need to show there is such a difference that must be noticed (and acknowledged) differently.  In retrospect, it may not have helped me very much with the search engines, which throw away or ignore the superscripting, but it should help most of the home-readers to start to recognize there is a new concept that has not yet been accepted (much less, even considered), by science.

      HISTORICAL NOTE: Before 2005, I added the superscripted ^C-R without the space between (as in: Black-Hole^C-R), but I think that ruined many chances for the search engines back then “to find the imbedded term, black hole”.  The main search engines also ignore the significance of the dashes (or minuses).

      Although I do thank the many search-engines for bringing in a majority of the first-time people who find the C-R theory, (as compared to those who hear about it directly from a friend, or from passed-out business cards, or limited advertising), I do wish I could get them to consider the dashes and superscripts in the text (especially in MY TEXTS), are AS IMPORTANT AS the “regular text”.

      I would be open to reader’s suggestions as to better options, or a more “search-engine friendly” way to get the point across.  I have been using this method since at least 2005, and visually, I am very happy with the result I SEE that something important is being offered, that STANDS OUT from the crowd.

      I would also welcome reader’s assistance in finding new links to known phenomena that would help to support (or even refute) any of the C-R theory’s ideas, especially if those sites are not written in English.  If your home country has articles relevant to the C-R theory’s expectations of phenomena of excess electrical currents, magnetic fields, positive ionizations of supernovae, which you come across, I would appreciate your letting me know about it.

      This is where I could ask those readers who DO find the C-R theory ideas interesting, or at least, discussion-worthy, to recommend it to your friends.  As a joke, I also recommend, if you hate the C-R theory, please recommend it to your enemies. Either way, we could use the publicity.

      Part of my goal is to get a good dialog started, and really have science reconsider what they so easily accepted, almost without questioning it, some 90 years ago.  I am trying to make it easy for you, by showing you what to look-at, where to look, what to notice, and WHAT WAS MISSED.  If my arguments are invalid, or just stupid, they will not hold up.

      If I were merely fibbing, falsifying, or fabricating great claims, I would not have picked excess electrons coming from Black-Holes ^C-R as a likely item for home readers to gullibly fall for.  I picked that idea only because it fit-in so well, and suggested a likely new use for matter that science would never suspect.  I felt compelled-enough to demand that this phenomena is real.  This either happens, or it does not.  The C-R theory’s usefulness depends heavily whether this phenomenon really exists, and can be found in nature.

      If the phenomena of excess electrons ejected from every Black-Hole ^C-R is not there, and therefore: cannot be found, the C-R theory IS wrong.  The last 30 years of discoveries have been kinder to the C-R theory, than should be the case if it is wrong.

      Again, my thanks to all of the 40,000 plus visitors to the home page, and other visitors to more specific portions of the C-R theory.  If this material helps YOU understand what is seen in this universe any better, or helps you chose another (even better?) option, I am glad I could help.  Even if you were merely entertained, I hope I could shed some new light on what you learn, and help to create a hunger for more knowledge.  If I can show you some of what is already known-about, we ALL gain from that.

      Much of what we might need to understand this universe may already be at hand, if we can just make the proper connections as to how “what we see” fits together.  If I can contribute to your puzzle-solving abilities, and you can contribute to mine, the world may be yet better off.

Jerry Reynard Feb. 6^th, 2012