[talanum1 (OP)]

My model allows the mass of a particle to increase indefinitely. If this wasn't so a particle would be able to accommodate only so much mass, which means if we were to give the particle energy beyond the mass it can encode, the particle will be accelerated beyond the speed of light.

However, my model states that an infinite space gets copied (compactified) into a finite Riemann sphere, so is it still capable of encoding infinite mass?

[Bored chemist]

My model allows the mass of a particle to increase indefinitely.

Then it is wrong, by a simple application of the conservation laws.

[Origin]

my model states that an infinite space gets copied (compactified) into a finite Riemann sphere, so is it still capable of encoding infinite mass?

The only thing I like about your post is a statement about your own model ends in a question mark.  Very apropos.

[puppypower]

There are two types of mass; rest mass and relativistic mass. The rest mass appears to be limited to certain states, but the relativistic mass can go to infinity, if we have infinite energy.

There is a difference between the two. Rest mass is connected to General Relativity, while relativistic mass is connected to Special Relativity. Both impact space-time but rest mass is different in the sense it can generate gravitational pressures that can alter the states of matter. The fusion core of the sun depends on gravitational pressure from rest mass.

Relativistic mass does not generate gravitational pressure, even though it can have an impact on space and time. If it did generate gravitational pressure space travel would be limited to the speed, below the speed of light, where human cells fuse. Relativistic mass does appear to generate gravity the same way as rest mass.

Rest mass is connected to the acceleration of gravity and has two time vectors; d/t/t. Relativistic mass is based on velocity and has only one time vector; d/t.

The second time vector can be understood by comparing the impact on space-time to the change in pressure, due to adding rest mass. The center of gravity of the sun slows space-time the most. However, gravitational pressure of the core also causes matter to have the fastest transitional states; fusion and gamma rays. The two time vectors of acceleration move in opposite directions; slower and faster.

 Relativistic mass does not compress or fuse the rocket ship into new matter states, since it lacks the second compression time vector connected to higher frequency or faster time. Although adding energy to create relativistic mass could add heat and result in higher frequencies. This could be radiated at constant speed without impacting the velocity or pressure.
 

[Bored chemist]

The second time vector

Time is not a vector.

[Bored chemist]

Rest mass is connected to General Relativity, while relativistic mass is connected to Special Relativity.

Relativistic and  rest mass are both part of both general and special relativity.

[talanum1 (OP)]

My model assumes particles are made out of space points and left-out space points. Since left-out space points cannot become infinitely dense, I think particles cannot become infinitely massive: since the mass is encoded in a region of left-out space points.

[Origin]

My model assumes particles are made out of space points and left-out space points. Since left-out space points cannot become infinitely dense, I think particles cannot become infinitely massive: since the mass is encoded in a region of left-out space points.

You do not have a scientific model, you have an idea that is based on misunderstandings about science in general.
If you are interested in science then you should learn some science and stop wasting your time making wild assed guesses.

[talanum1 (OP)]

You do not have a scientific model, you have an idea that is based on misunderstandings about science in general

Produce a criticism of my model then. What am I misunderstanding? My model explains why Anyons have e/3 charge. My model can be found at: www.ijasr.org/paper/ijasr00424945.pdf

[Bored chemist]

Produce a criticism of my model then.

We don't need to; you already did it.
You said

My model allows the mass of a particle to increase indefinitely.

And that is proof that your model is wrong.

[alancalverd]

Given that m = m₀/√(1-v²/c²), said model is entirely consistent with relativity and hence with all observations to date.

The problem is that to accelerate a nonzero mass to c, you require an infinite amount of energy, and you can only acquire that by conversion of an infinite mass.

So we are back to irresistible forces and immovable objects, which is philosophy, not physics. Intellectual self-abuse is far more dangerous than the physical variety.

[Bored chemist]

you can only acquire that by conversion of an infinite mass.

So, unless you have an infinite mass handy, you can't do what the OP's model says.
And we don't have an infinite mass.
So what he says is wrong.

So his model is inconsistent with a universe where you don't have access to infinite energy.
So it's inconsistent with this universe.

A scientific theory which is inconsistent with the properties of the universe is called "wrong".

Given that m = m0/√(1-v2/c2), said model is entirely consistent with relativity and hence with all observations to date.

Where did you observe the infinite mass required to do this? (and how did you avoid falling into it?)

[talanum1 (OP)]

m=gamma*m_0, so special relativity allows for mass to go to infinity. This requires the points encoding mass to go to infinite density inside the particle.

Although one can never reach infinity.

[Bored chemist]

"Can a Particle's Mass Grow Without Bound?"
No.
If nothing else, the bound is the mass of the observable universe.

[Origin]

This requires the points encoding mass to go to infinite density inside the particle.

Arm waving nonsense.