Science and theoretical physics have generally been happy with the predictions brought forth by General Relativity. When a so called violation occurs everyone gets upset only because GR has been so reliable in the past. And so it is with the speed of light.

However, GR may have had something major missing right from the start. I like to think of it as something so outlandish that it would get most physicists upset at the mere mention of it. Perhaps it is because it is something that no scientist wants to hear. GR is based upon invariant measurements and observations of a universe that is now becoming understood to be variant in nature. Is the view providing incorrect information when looking through a single lens microscope? Or is it just that reality has another dimension to consider?

According to the laws and properties of accelerating bodies in space, if the universal frame is in motion– moving into the new direction “large”, According to the great mathematician and theoretical physicist, Jules Henri Poincare, no integral member of this universal frame may be capable of taking direct accurate measurements of any and all perceived motion of it. All measuring tools are integral members of the same expanding and accelerating frame. This observer invariance in effect takes the tools away from scientists as direct measurement is ineffectual. It would make life simpler if observer invariance did not exist, but unfortunately it is a scientific fact and one of the most important properties of accelerating bodies in space when an observer is a member part of the action itself.

It is my personal opinion (and I have spent the last thirteen years trying to disprove this paradigm but can’t) that all particle matter that has gravity does not have some kind of magnetic attraction but is rather accelerating into the direction “large”. Because of our membership in the universal frame and because of observer invariance, the appearance of particle matter being attracted to each other may be partially an illusion.

If Newton’s laws are re-examined they are entirely workable if (G) the gravitational constant’s units (cm³/sec² gm) are interpreted as expanding and accelerating particle matter where the distance between particles narrows only because the size of the particles increase at the same relative core position. The gravity as seen at the surface level of all planets and stars (g) is merely inertia which is driven by the reaction to acceleration. This inertia automatically sorts matter according to mass density and is the result of the addition of the accelerations of all particle matter from the core to the surface point of measurement of a planet (with inertial effects carrying on beyond into the atmosphere and through space not entirely devoid of matter). This secondary acceleration creates coagulation according to the geometry of forces established by the normal set of properties associated with all accelerating bodies in space.

Einstein originally had a choice. He believed that gravity and inertia were the same but could not prove it because it would mean that the planets and stars were all getting larger at an accelerated rate. He thought that was nonsensical. Well, since then Hubbell found the universe to be expanding and Riess et al. found the universe to be accelerating. Wasn’t this an indication to the scientific community that exactness should be re examined? Do we still stick to “only what is observed” even though we erroneously observe ourselves to be stationary while standing inside a cave under the earth? We know that observation is often incorrect. What is necessary is a set of rules that act like a “super observer” so that frames of motion will not be confused. This super observer has always existed as the set of all accelerating properties in space and should have always held precedence over gravitational laws that were never completely understood. These properties set the parameters for the proper questions to be asked. (The reason all released bodies within a space ship fall to the floor at the same time no matter their mass is because released bodies are moving at the velocity in which they achieved at the point of release- until the accelerating floor catches up to them). It is within the boundaries of logic to assume that this phenomenon (being universal) is also occurring on the surface of planets even though we cannot see the motion. Making up a new law that states that falling bodies are no longer affected by the gravitational field is therefore double fudge.

If my calculations and logic are correct, gravity and inertia are exactly the same. At the local level this would mean that we exist in a variant universe where the ground is moving upward and the gravitation laws can be eliminated and replaced by the universal properties of acceleration (one step closer to a unified theory). “Exactness” is correct and equivalence along with space time curvature should be scrapped as space time curvature merely draws coordinates where variant mass is expanding to at any given moment in time (which creates a natural space time curvature). The conservation laws must be reworked as they apply to an invariant perspective of energy (all energy becomes visible to an observer in the universal frame when it is punctuated in concentrations above the levels of the expansion rate of the universal frame).

In an invariant universe velocity is uniform for distance over time and the speed of light never changes. In a variant universe the yardstick is ever increasing and compounding in distance for the same perceived quantity of time; in effect it is an acceleration not a speed at all. Therefore, in infinite space there is no limitation on the speed of light as it moves faster every moment in time (the speed of light is broken constantly). For a neutrino to move faster it would just mean that the particle was somehow projected (launched) from a light platform into a secondary acceleration frame (perceived invariantly as a velocity). Not a groundbreaking revelation for a variant universe. The surfaces of black holes may be exceeding the speed (acceleration) of light as well. This is another possibility resulting from the proposed Principle of Exactness.

See the movie A Brief Conversation With Albert Einstein/ How Gravity Actually Works, starring Carl Reiner as Albert Einstein.