The universe is expanding and the rate of expansion is accelerating and Adam Riess has won a Nobel. Good on you Adam.

The only problem is that he doesn’t know why the rate of expansion should be accelerating and suggest that the answer to that sticky question would almost certainly guarantee another Nobel.

Personally I find this all quite amusing as it would appear that a clear understanding of relativity would supply the answer.

The apparent expansion of universe is a relative effect of time and space in relation to the existing condition of universe remaining relative to our system of reference being Planet Earth.

We are confined to the existing condition of universe remaining relative to our system or point of reference whereby the existing condition of universe visible to us could be referred to as our relative field state.  This relative field state is sustained by an underlying force of energy which is focused to the center of our planet.  In response to this underlying energy focused to the center of our planet there is an equal outflow of resistance extending from the center of the earth’s core to outer boundary of universe and it is this outflow of resistance which  is responsible for the accelerative expansion of universe.

Both the inflow of energy and the outflow of resistance are increasing at an ever quickening pace which provides us with the appearance of an expanding universe.

However, should we reposition ourselves to a galaxy close to the outer boundary of universe by means of instantaneous transformation and establish a new point of reference we could look back in the direction of our planet earth and see our milkyway galaxy and its neighboring galaxies moving apart at an ever increasing rate.

What we are dealing with here is a differential in energy and nothing more.  This underlying energy I refer to as non-linear time field frequency which sustains and perpetuates all physical structure.  To get a better understanding of this energy you might want to read the book Unity which is a free download at gravitycontrol.org

The accelerating expansion of universe is simply a relative effect of the accelerative energy associated with our planet`s structural dynamics.

For every action there must be an opposite and equal reaction and in the case of our view of universe the reaction comes in the form of an expanding universe which is constantly accelerating.

Experiment Opera has resulted in a radical story concerning the speed of light.

Reuters reports that Antonio Ereditato and his team at the Cern Particle Research Centre sent 15000 beams of neutrinos speeding from one place to another whereby they arrived at their destination 60 nanoseconds ahead of schedule.

From this it has been determined that the neutrinos were traveling faster than light speed. This suggests that Einstein’s relativity could be overturned as it has been assumed impossible for mass to travel faster than the speed of light.

It may be that the speed of light was not exceeded at all but that light speed is not at all constant.

Keep in mind that the speed of light is the time it takes light to travel a distance of one metre…which is 1/299,792,458ths of a second and that this value was standardized many years ago on the basis of light speed fluctuating from place to place. The whole idea of a standard value was to eliminate confusion but at the same time failed to question the constancy of light speed.

I would suggest that the alleged neutrinos did not exceed the speed of light but simply traveled at the speed of light as it is at the present time.

No rules have been broken and no speed limits exceeded.

Unfortunately light does not itself have a speed as described…what is measured is a time factor and nothing more.

The idea light speed should remain constant for billions of years in a dynamic universe seems a bit less than rational, just as the idea of it being possible to clock the speed of light in the same manner as a race horse seems a bit less than rational.

At some point a distinction must be made between the speed of a horse in terms of a linear evaluation and the apparent speed of light in terms of a non-linear evaluation.

A truly dynamic universe does not produce or require the aid of a universal constant as the only universal constant is change…sometimes fast and sometimes slow but change nonetheless.

Al is not our pal…no way is this guy my friend when he equates racism with global warming.

The line Al is peddling would have us believe that racial slurs are equivalent to denying climate change to be a man made problem which man can fix through the application of penalties and taxes.

Al wants to put those who oppose his radical views on weather in the same box with racists. He insists that his followers must win the conversation by insulting their opponents into submission.

He wants to see it become socially unacceptable to deny the man made effects of carbon dioxide. What the hell does Al want, an apology from us for breathing? Sorry Al but you are really not making a whole lot of sense with this at all.

Get a grip Al, weather change is a fact but it is not a product of industry as you would have us believe, weather change runs in cycles which correspond to earth/sun differentials in energy and there is not a whole lot anyone can do about it.

New taxes and increased regulations are not going to fix the weather.

And by the way Al, about that biodiesel that converts corn to fuel rather than feed hungry people, it seems the cost of eating is going up due in part to your efforts…at least the price of corn has risen which really does equate to hunger for far too many people.

No Al you are not my pal, not even close.

I recently sent an email to Arnie in response to his comments on the disposal of nuclear waste materials and the neutralization of plutonium. I also made a point of thanking him for his effort and his balanced attitude in speaking out on the Fukishima situation and other critical issues facing the nuclear industry, so a big hats off to Arnie Gundersen.

There is no known solution to either issue but I wonder if anyone has had any experience in attempting to freeze Plutonium to a temperature close to absolute zero and I further wonder if such a thing would be possible.

If we consider the true nature of energy in relation to an underlying force of energy sustaining and perpetuating the structure of all physical materials and realize that Plutonium has an extremely low ratio of energy per unit of mass we might be able to make some progress.

The whole issue of nuclear waste materials is in fact a very real and immediate problem which needs to be dealt with as soon as possible. Both Canada and the USA have undertaken attempts to establish underground depositories in which to store nuclear waste materials only to abandon the idea, yet the Swiss seem to be pushing ahead despite the very real safety issue involved in relation to the internal and external dynamics of the earth being inversely proportional.

This means that the sealing of underground depositories once filled with nuclear waste materials, backfilled and sealed with concrete may pose a risk in that the internal dynamics of the earth will then have a direct effect on the stability of the nuclear materials.

Drums of nuclear waste materials have a surface temperature of 110 to 120 F before the depository is sealed and as so little is known about the inverse effects of the earth’s internal dynamics it may be possible that the temperature of the stored nuclear waste materials will increase in temperature over time. The extent of such a temperature increase is unknown at this time but it can be determined that an increase will occur.

The key to neutralizing any nuclear waste material links directly to the low ratios of energy per unit of mass determining an extremely high resistance to a further increase in energy in that it is an increase in energy which is needed to neutralize nuclear waste materials.

What is ultimately needed is an alternative to nuclear power allowing the accumulation of nuclear waste materials to cease and to this end I believe Project Unity might be capable of fulfilling that goal.

Professor Du
Hey there professor what’s all this about time travel being impossible.

You seem to be stuck on the speed of light or the speed of a photon but do you actually know what you are talking about?

I wonder if you really understand what time is…I also question your idea of it being possible to clock the speed of a photon or light for that matter in a manner similar to the clocking of a race car or a horse at the track.

I’m always surprised by these amazing revelations suggesting it impossible for visitors from distant galaxies to reach our planet in a timely manner.

Check this out; time is different for every system in motion.  Plus we exist in a simultaneous universe where both past and future conditions exist simultaneously.

And on the basis of your experiment you conclude time travel to be impossible…I do think you need to reconsider the idea.

I must assume from your stance that instantaneous transformation must also be impossible as instantaneous is a bit faster than light speed, in fact it has no speed.

This light speed stuff is a red herring it keeps the real story buried and out of sight.  But don’t feel too bad you’re not alone and I’m sure a lot of people are relieved to hear the news concerning time travel.  Now they can stop worrying about anyone finding out what really happened.

Hang in there professor, it’s never too late for a new perception of universe.