Zetas Right Again ===> Scientists: Particles appear to travel faster than light



(CNN) -- Scientists in Switzerland say an experiment appears to show that tiny particles traveled faster than the speed of light -- a result that would seem to defy the laws of nature.

Light Speed Limitations

Note: written during the 2001 sci.astro debates. Expanded with Light Speed Limitation section during IRC Session. Planet X and the 12th Planet are one and the same.

In the dozen or so years prior to a passage, Planet X speeds up from almost a standstill to a zoom, toward the foci it is approaching. Imagine the Earth without atmosphere, and a rock some miles overhead. What is the speed limit on this rock as it plummets? There is no limit in space, only that which mankind assumes. During math discussions on sci.astro, it has been surmised that the speed of Planet X approaches the speed of light during its most rapid approach, and this astonishes those in the discussion. Why is it assumed that light is the fastest thing in the universe, re travel? Man thinks this because it is something he can measure. He is aware of such a small percentage of matter and energy about him that to say that he comprehends 1% of what the universe is composed of would be an overstatement. Our space travel, in 4th Density and even 3rd Density, is faster than light, and we do not melt. Man does not understand, so we cannot give him satisfaction in our explanations. Suffice it to say that our explanation is correct, and Planet X travels rapidly into our midst, thence the Repulsion Force is invoked, thence it floats past between the Earth and Sun.
All rights reserved: ZetaTalk@ZetaTalk.com



Views: 3968


You need to be a member of Earth Changes and the Pole Shift to add comments!

Join Earth Changes and the Pole Shift

Comment by ann s. on October 10, 2012 at 5:55pm

More evidence Zetas right again about faster than light?  Don't know; this stuff makes my head spin.

Einstein's Math May Be Compatible With Faster-Than-Light Travel, Mathematicians Say

Published:  10/09/2012  By: Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer

Although Einstein's theories suggest nothing can move faster than the speed of light, two scientists have extended his equations to show what would happen if faster-than-light travel were possible.

Despite an apparent prohibition on such travel by Einstein’s theory of special relativity, the scientists said the theory actually lends itself easily to a description of velocities that exceed the speed of light.

"We started thinking about it, and we think this is a very natural extension of Einstein's equations," said applied mathematician James Hill, who co-authored the new paper with his University of Adelaide, Australia, colleague Barry Cox. The paper was published Oct. 3 in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical and Physical Sciences....


Scientists have extended Einstein's equations for faster-than-light travel. Here a three-dimensional (right) graph shows the relationship between three different velocities: v, u and U, where v is the velocity of a second observer.

Interestingly, neither the original Einstein equations, nor the new, extended theory can describe massive objects moving at the speed of light itself. Here, both sets of equations break down into mathematical singularities, where physical properties can't be defined.

"The actual business of going through the speed of light is not defined," Hill told LiveScience. "The theory we've come up with is simply for velocities greater than the speed of light."

In effect, the singularity divides the universe into two: a world where everything moves slower than the speed of light, and a world where everything moves faster. The laws of physics in these two realms could turn out to be quite different....  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/10/einsteins-math-faster-than...

Comment by astrogal50 on October 4, 2011 at 5:23pm

Why did the Huffington Post choose to accompany an article about a Nobel Prize for a theory about the expansion of the universe with a picture (artist rendering?) of a sunside, red celestial object?  Maybe the public is being quietly prepared for the day when Planet X can no longer be covered up because the average man can see it?

Nobel Prize Physics 2011: U.S. Scientists Win For Universe Expansion Studies

STOCKHOLM -- Three U.S.-born scientists won the Nobel Prize in physics on Tuesday for overturning a fundamental assumption in their field by showing that the expansion of the universe is constantly accelerating.

Their discovery created a new portrait of the eventual fate of the universe: a place of super-low temperatures and black skies unbroken by the light of galaxies moving away from each other at incredible speed.

Physicists had assumed for decades that the expansion of the universe was getting ever-slower, meaning that in billions of years it would resemble today's universe in many important ways….  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/04/nobel-prize-physics_n_9938...

Comment by Pachakamakin on September 26, 2011 at 3:54pm

I was thinking a lot about this Article. Nancy, That thing refered by Zetas as faster than the light we know, could be Plasma?

Comment by Jerry Keith & Linda Lee on September 24, 2011 at 9:55pm

Oh my goodness... my head is just spinning!  But you know, I think I'm getting this.  Amazing!  Absolutely amazing and so exciting.  We really have to start changing our thinking based on what we know, open ourselves to new, unproven concepts, and be ready for the shock that we humble humans are pretty infantile.  The Zeta's are so tollerant and kind.  Sort of like parents to their children.  I truly hope we can all evolve and become something the Zeta's can some day be proud of.  This is a great thread, and so educational.  Thank you so much!


Comment by Nancy Lieder on September 23, 2011 at 11:01pm


the Zetas describe subatomic particles as being attracted to each other, wanting to clump, while at the same time being repulsed by the crowding. They do not explain WHY, but this perpetual motion is what makes our Universe what it is, so God knows. A good explanation of this perpetual motion is in the Science section for magnetism.


Comment by Pachakamakin on September 23, 2011 at 10:50pm

Thanks for your interesting explanation. I understand that light -light as the phenomenon that we know in this Plane- is not the limit.

When you says -I refer to the Article The interestelar travel- "[...] the interstellar travel is by propulsion. It is not, it is by attraction...", you use the term "attraction" in the same sense of Correspondence [Principle of Correspondence]?

Comment by MegaMontana on September 23, 2011 at 10:47pm

I agree 100% with Jan-Udo. Your ability to deal with the most arrogant of children is something I can only envy and admire. It's been a very long road and it's nice to see human science attempting to correlate with zeta science. Even if it's just a small amount that took a decade.

Comment by Nancy Lieder on September 23, 2011 at 10:00pm

And here's Jim Scotti, who tends the Pope Scope at Tucson, AZ, arguing the OLD way of thinking with the Zetas. I wonder if he's heard the lastest about ... Zetas RIGHT Again!


In thread Re: Planet X: Why Sarah Mac FAILS
In Article: Jim Scotti wrote:
> If your fictitious object orbits the sun every 3600
> years as you've stated, it can't get farther than about
> 470 astronomical units from the sun which means it
> should never get fainter than 20th magnitude if it is as
> you describe it.

You're still mixing in YOUR definitions with OURS,
Jim, without clarifying this. You're attempting to
mince words carefully, so in a strictly legal sense
you cannot be said to have misquoted, but by
failing to ascribe what portion of your statements
are YOUR limited human understanding of how
matters work, from OUR statements, you hope to
mislead the public! Now why is that, Jim, that this
should be SO important, to mislead the public?

In Message <3E1B901B.CE023E9A@zetatalk.com> ZetaTalk wrote:
> In Article Jim Scotti wrote:
>> You're still clinging to orbits having two populated foci,
>> aren't you?
> Its OUR smoldering brown dwarf that you are pointing
> folks to look at, NOT something your limited human
> brain and knowledge can comprehend! If you're telling
> people to go look at YOUR interpretation of what is
> possible, then SAY so. Don't confuse our statements
> with YOURS. To do so is misleading, and DELIBERATELY
> so. Or are you simply mentally limited, unable to sort the
> two out, having as we said an identity crisis? You
> disagree with an associate, so you mix in YOUR
> interpretations and concepts with what he said, and this
> is how things are run at the University of Arizona? We
> think not.
> ZetaTalk™

The Zetas, who have stated that Planet X:
- is an object like Earth, that can support life on
its surface as on the surface of Earth, which is NOT
A BRIGHT HOT OBJECT object as might fit in human
limited descriptions for a brown dwarf, else the life
there would be fried,
- is in size no more than 4 TIMES THE DIAMETER
OF EARTH, so is not several times the size of
Jupiter as humans like to define the low limit of a
brown dwarf.

From the distance/speed descriptions given by the Zetas,
the Sighting TEAM has computed that Planet X:
- is currently at 4 TIMES THE SUN-PLUTO distance,
which is about 408 AU so Jim is describing as
distance less than half the mid-point between the
two foci it orbits and he described in his 470 AU
LESS THAN A FIFTH of the distance from our Sun
that it travels, so it
- currently appears to be at 5% of Jupiter's size, and
is not yet reflecting sunlight as the other planets in
the solar system.

And he should KNOW this, as pointers to the body of what ZetaTalk has
stated were given to him the last time an exchange between he and the
Zetas occurred, earlier this month!

In Message <3E1A3859.FC92C9DB@zetatalk.com> ZetaTalk wrote:
> In Message Jim Scotti wrote:
>> Assuming it is the size and albedo of Saturn (isn't it
>> supposed to be a Brown Dwarf, so it should be larger
>> and give off some of its own light?), it would have to
>> be about 100 times farther away than Saturn - that
>> would be something like 1000 times the distance of
>> Earth from the Sun!
> It is as a body 4 times the diameter of Earth and about half
> way in from its dither point between its two foci, some 9
> Sun-Pluto distances OUT. We will ask Nancy to give you a few
> pages as reference so we can be on the same page here.
> ZetaTalk™
> See: Distance, (http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s100.htm)
> See: Speed, (http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s112.htm)
> See: Size Guide, (http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/pierre4.htm)
> See: Sling Orbit, (http://www.zetatalk.com/science/s106.htm)
> See: Predicted Appearance, (http://www.zetatalk.com/poleshft/p139.htm)
> See: Table of Distances,(http://www.zetatalk.com/theword/tword03a.htm)

For instance, the Size Guide link [quoted below] has a graphic showing
what this size MEANS in terms of the objects in the Sep 21, 2002 FITS

Assuming the sci.astro conclusions of :
Nibiru's [Body] Swirl = 3% Jupiter, 33% Uranus.
it leds to :
Nibiru's Swirl ~ 1.2 arcsec (0.6" Dec) (diameter)
Nibiru itself ~ 0.30 arsec
Size Guide for Sept 15, 2002 Viewing
Comment by Nancy Lieder on September 23, 2011 at 9:50pm

And we had our supporters! The Small Kahuna was one of them.



The solution to these problems is to introduce "inflation", an exponential doubling in size of the
universe from the singularity on every 10^-53 seconds. It is a Wall Street brokerage firm's dream -
unconstrained exponential growth. Because it grows so big so fast, it drives omega to unity and tends
to create a bumpy universe because space is being created faster than light can connect separate
regions. It is a great theory and has a lot of math and equations about it, but still, is is just So Much
Hand Waving. I mean, really, get a grip. There is no other parallel in any other area of science
(exponential growth) that does not quickly exhaust some resource, otherwise the universe would
consist of one solid mass of bacteria. And, yes, I've read Guth's book. But there is that damn picture.
And it bugs me. All of our current cosmology is based on that assumption that the frequency does not
change as the the light propagates across the universe. It is, after all, reasonable as there is not a lot of
data to suggest otherwise and no known theory explains why it should not be so.

Plus (I know what you might be thinking) there is the famous experiment "confirming" Einstein's
geometric interpretation of gravity. A star was seen "too long" as it passed behind the eclipsed image
of the sun indicating that space was curved near the high gravitational field of the sun. This is great
but it is also a circular argument. Space is curved near gravitational objects because light bends and
light is "known" to not be affected by gravity. After all, since light propagates undisturbed through
space (we assume) any deviation must be geometric, not a force interaction. If we discard the
assumption, all of the current big bang theory collapses. Discarding this theory is not as ridiculous as
it seems at first blush. There have been a number of "lazy light" explanations offered for the red shift of
distant objects which would preserve correlation between distance and the red shift. If we allow for
the gravitational attraction of light as the explanation for Einstein's prediction then it does not seem so
unreasonable that a gravitational field could also leak away the energy of the light (i.e. frequency shift)
as it propagates over the vast distances. The magnitude of the effect is clearly small or we would have
observed it in local experiments. But small effects should not bother us, after all we were willing to
accept an accuracy requirement of 10^-100 for the big bang model. Well, what about the 3K
background radiation? You ask. That is the smoking gun, after all. Explain that, huh?


Yes, I know, gives me a headache too. My point is, the Zetas kept up with all of this!
Even lured Jim Scotti, a famous astronomer, into the debate.

Comment by Nancy Lieder on September 23, 2011 at 9:43pm

Einstein decided, per the Zetas, not to give mankind what he had set out to give them, essentially free energy, because he determined they were too immature and would misuse it. So he's not clue them in on FTL travel either, I presume. I and the Zetas came under a lot of heat during the sci.astro debates (a link from the left hand side of the ZetaTalk home page, if you want an interesting read) which went on for years. I searched for FTL and will provide a couple examples. One including an a person who ridiculed myself and ZetaTalk the whole way:


Article: <5dsotb$dhm@sjx-ixn6.ix.netcom.com>
From: saquo@ix.netcom.com(Nancy )
Subject: Re: Nancy/Zetas
Date: 12 Feb 1997 15:51:07 GMT

In article <5dq3ju$nfg@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neill writes:
>> The lava, frozen to the bedrock where it ended its journey
>> as it flowed from the volcano core, first points in one
>> direction, then another, then another, etc.
> Sorry, Nance, but you're confusing things. It's the magnetic
> field of the cooled lava that showes directional change. This
> in fact forms an excellent chronology of magnetic pole shifts.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

Greg! You and the Zetas are saying the same thing. To conclude that the Zetas were saying that only MOLTEN lava is pointing this way or that would be to insert the assumption of lava that never cools! What do the words of the Zetas "where it ended its journey" mean to you, or "frozen to the bedrock"? Does that sound like molten lava on the move?

In article <5dq3ju$nfg@pollux.cmc.ec.gc.ca> Greg Neill writes:
>> The answer, of course, is that the crust has been
>> dramatically moved during pole shift, where it slides along
>> with the highly magnetized core.
> We see the magnetic pole shifts layed down in nice even
> bands. We would expect dramatic upheavals such as you
> suggest to upset the nice pattern, fracturing the crust along
> the plate margins, etc. Since we don't observe that, there's
> no evidence for your musings.
> ynecgan@cmc.doe.ca (Greg Neill)

(Begin ZetaTalk[TM])
Your crust has not fractured? WHAT DO YOU THINK SHEER CLIFFS ARE! The record of pole shifts in hardened lava, the bands you describe, is not fractured because the lava is flowing BECAUSE of the pole shift, and hardening occurs AFTER the shift.

And what do you mean when you say you don't muse about matters you can't observe? Hogwash! This message board is littered with discussions about the Big Bang and Faster Than Light travel through space. Subatomic particles are another point, where you have not SEEN what you are discussing. All musings, with conclusions that get adjusted as you gather and correlate more data. Well, at least SOME of your cohorts adjust their concepts to data, most cling to edicts gods.
(End ZetaTalk[TM])

SEARCH PS Ning and Zetatalk



You can support the ning by using the above button. 


© 2017   Created by Gerard Zwaan.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service