Do observed phenomena support the Comedy Recycling Theory?

[DaddyUnit]

My friend Jerry just posted a new, fairly large blog that wraps up his list of observed phenomena that seem to fit (and validate) his theory.

 

I'm not well educated in science and have difficulty understanding a lot of concepts (theory or relativity, string theory) and also I can't at all get my head around Jerry's theory, but he seems very convinced and over the years I've known him he's always popping up with a new bit of recently discovered information that seems to support his theory, which makes him very convincing.

 

Anyway, being completely unqualified to assess his ideas on my own, yet eager to know if he's onto something important, I'd be very interested in hearing what those of you with lots of brain power and much education in science think about what he has to say.

 

Comedy-Recycling Theory of the Entire Known Universe

 

Thanks in advance!

[freeztar]

From a brief scan of the home page, it doesn't look like good science.

 

Did you have questions about anything in particular. I'm not up for a multi-page refutation.

[Tekime]

I'm not qualified to comment on the scientific accuracy of the theory, but I can say the website is probably not helping it to be taken seriously. It's extremely unclear what the theory is in the first place, and the majority of the website reads like sales copy. If the theory is sound, there's no need for the preamble IMO.

 

However, I did finally find this 122 page PDF on Gravity and C-R Theory which, while still a very unscientific document in the sense that it's filled with unnecessary commentary and seems to lack sources and supporting data for most of it's claims, made a little bit more sense than the visually horrifying and potentially seizure-inducing homepage did.

 

This is an excerpt from the first page, which seems to summarize (in the loosest form of the phrase) the main points:

 

The C-R theory has postulated a new explanation for the nature of gravity. This

nature of gravity is based on (after)thought experiments which will be included and

discussed further in the appendix.

The C-R theory has also concluded that gravity behaves in an easily predictable

manner, even at the edge and the inside of a Black-Hole C-R. The C-R theory obeying

black hole is so different from conventional black holes, a new way of differentiation and

marking has been chosen, using the double capitalized-hyphenated, super-scripted

Black-Hole C-R. This includes the new understanding of how gravitational fields function,

both outside and inside the vicinity of a Black-Hole C-R, and how they influence matter.

C-R has postulated that the true nature of gravity is caused by curvature; a

significantly different mechanism than that which is currently accepted as the best

explanation of gravity. Most current theories believe that gravity is a force, comparable to

the electromagnetic force. If so, there should be hypothetical gravitational particles,

called gravitons, that will be interchanged. This interchange is believed to be comparable

to the interchange of the W particle (the Vector Boson), which is believed to intermediate

both the strong and the weak nuclear forces.

The C-R theory will attempt to demonstrate that gravitons are not the cause of

gravity. The C-R theory believes that the curvature of space-time is what causes the

"effect" of gravity. This slow-down of time from the curvature results in energy being

"squeezed-out of" matter somewhat like orange juice is squeezed out from an orange.

Only 100% of the available energy can be extracted, just as only 100% of the available

orange juice can be squeezed from an orange. Squeezing any harder, or exerting more

effort will not yield more orange juice. Ditto for gravity.

This energy, which comes "out-of" any mass which is being warped or bent in a

space-time continuum, causes the kinetic energy, or acceleration which we think of as

"gravity". This acceleration is independent of the mass or it's density, it results strictly

from the apparent slow-down of time, proportional to the amount of the warping of time.

 

So anyway, maybe that'll help a real scientist make some sense of it for the rest of us? ;)

[DaddyUnit]

I'm not qualified to comment on the scientific accuracy of the theory, but I can say the website is probably not helping it to be taken seriously. It's extremely unclear what the theory is in the first place, and the majority of the website reads like sales copy. If the theory is sound, there's no need for the preamble IMO.

 

However, I did finally find this 122 page PDF on Gravity and C-R Theory which, while still a very unscientific document in the sense that it's filled with unnecessary commentary and seems to lack sources and supporting data for most of it's claims, made a little bit more sense than the visually horrifying and potentially seizure-inducing homepage did.

 

This is an excerpt from the first page, which seems to summarize (in the loosest form of the phrase) the main points:

 

 

 

So anyway, maybe that'll help a real scientist make some sense of it for the rest of us? :shrug:

 

Yeah, there are times I try to understand the CR Theory (like I occasionally try to understand string theory but I just never get very far) and it would be very helpful if he could "simplify and clarify" (as I'm often nagging him to do).

 

So...let's just say for the sake of argument that I wanted to try and help him find someone who could really dig into the theory and help him simplify and clarify. I've thought of trying to look for someone with a sufficiently scientific brain and enough time to devote to helping him out with this, but I have no idea where to start. Maybe a student? A retired scientist with some time to devote to this maybe. Where could I possibly start to search for someone like this...maybe some kind of help wanted/volunteers wanted ad?