Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Your Thoughts on the Comedy-Recycling Theory

Hello,

My friend Jerry has a theory, the Comedy-Recycling Theory of the Entire Known Universe. While he presents his theory with a sense of humor and his own sense of wit, he is completely serious about his ideas and has worked very hard to present his theory in many different ways. He has two versions of the theory in an online book, several videos and very prolific blog.

I don't understand his theory myself, but I don't have much of a head for abstraction or advanced scientific thought. I help Jerry with his web site and have been friends with him for many years.

I'd like to invite you to visit his web site at www.cr-theory.org and have a look. I'd love to hear what you think and will pass all legitimate comments or questions back to him.

Thanks for your consideration.

Hi, DaddyUnit. Knowing how discouraging it can be to receive no response to a post, I thought I would have a look at cr-theory. One question springs out of the first few lines. It relates to the changing shape of the trampoline surface.

.

Surely gravity provides the continually maintained force. If you were maintaining the depression by pressing something down on the trampoline, I suspect you would soon become aware that you were expending energy in order simply to maintain the status quo.

Thanks very much for your reply!

I'll relay this post to Jerry who may wish to relay a response (Jerry doesn't like to post in the forums directly....geniuses, go figure).

Here's another couple of comments.

He (you?) says that gravity doesn't require gravitons to be travelling because it doesn't require any continual supply of energy to maintain the curvature of spacetime.

However, the conventional theory uses virtual gravitons, not actual gravitons. The virtual ones don't use up energy. It's similar to the way electric charges use virtual photons continually exchanged in order to maintain the electrostatic force between them. They're not using up energy, but those virtual photons still have to mediate the force.



"Black-Holes ... isolating, insulating, and inactivating the electrical charges of the protons.

Almost ALL electrons are freed outside of the Black-Holes C-R. If the Black-Hole C-R is eating, it will leave evidence of excess electrons escaping from it’s vicinity."

A black hole violates conservation of electric charge? Why aren't "almost all" electrons trapped in a black hole along with the other bits of their atoms?



Overall, I think giving it a funny name doesn't make it any different from all the other non-formalized theories based on words and analogies that are equally unsuccessful and lacking in predictive ability.

Here's Jerry's response to your first comment. I'll send him your additional comments right now. Thanks!

The point you realized, that no ENERGY is continually output by gravity, is one of the unique new features offered by the C-R theory. What I try to say is that “gravity” (as we experience it) is an after-effect, or the result of “curvature” changing the energy-carrying capacity of matter. It is more-like a vice squeezing an orange, reducing it’s juice-carrying capacity. (But gravity IS reversible in small doses, and not a one-way effect.)
Curvature is a (geo)metric-like shaping, bending, distortion, that prevents some carrying-capacity as curvature increases. As we lift-up an object, we enable it to exist for a slightly-longer amount-of-time, which takes EXACTLY the amount of ENERGY we had to exert. Unless we drop the object, it keeps this new energy.
NOTE: The effect is very small, or about one part in 1016th per meter. Mainstream science has missed this point entirely.
Please check-out the C-R theory at www.cr-theory.org for more info. Jerry Reynard

It's also 'unique' to just about every other theory of gravity since the days of it being a flux of invisible substance rushing into the Earth and bashing into massive objects on their way.


I don't understand the effect you're referring to. But if it's that strong then it would surely have been detected long ago. Or does 1016th mean 10 to the power of 16? That's different. Is it a prediction of GR or CR?