1) From decades or reading about this sutff it seems clear E=MC2 specifically requires mass increase in some proportion to energy used to accelerate the mass relative to any observer. Specifically, it is impossible to add enough acceleration to any amount of mass so that it equals the speed of light in whatever medium the two exist. [The speed of light DOES decrease if the medium through which it passes is less then a vaccum.]

Fair enough.

2) We have neutron stars instead of positron stars since there is no such thing as an atom without both. Hence, sufficient gravitational force will force electrons to combine into neutrons, and accumulate with already existing neutrons that may exist in any specific atom. Hence a Neutron accumulation we call a neutron star.

Sounds familiar.

3) No one has yet convinced me simple accumulation of mass into an existing neutron star will produce a black hole. If not, this is important because it means black holes can only be formed when initial stellar gravitational colapse is so extreem it overcomes the strong neuclear force. Specifically, the acceleration of such mass begins to approach the speed of light, and by deffinition, approaches infinite mass, but can never achieve infinite mass.

I don't think anyone does think that a neutron star can become a BH simply by virtue of accreting more mass.

IMHO only one thing can happen. Time for the accelerated mass, in addition to any additional mass acquired through the acretion disk, comes to a near halt. But NOT a halt since that would violate E=mc2.

Ok.

4) I do not believe infinities of any sort exist in the natural world. Accordingly, black holes do not have any sort of singularity with infinite density or infinite mass. On the contrary, actual observation shows black holes increase their gravitational impact as they continue to accumulate mass. By simple deduction, they can have neither infinite density nor infinite mass since, by definition, neither could be added to or subtracted from.

The concept of infinity is a mathematical abstraction and you've got to be very careful where you use it. That a singularity could have infinite mass is clearly wrong, and I suspect you didn't mean that, but infinite density doesn't apply either. Density requires volume but if the singularity has zero volume then the property of density cannot be applied to it; saying that its density is infinite is misleading insofar as it suggests an infinitely small, but non-zero, volume. In theory, either a zero-sized or a finitely small sized singularity works but an infinitely small sized singularity just results in more infinities, which end up being meaningless, especially when you try to apply them to something that clearly exists and which must therefore be understandable.

5) In addition, I believe neither space nor time are infinite in nature. Again, by definition, if the universe had a begining, and is expanding, neither can be inifinite. Indeed, I believe the most important contribution from quantum mechanics is the future is unknowable. Not only that, but it shows time and space grow Plank unit by Plank unit in absolutely unpredictable ways.

Well, you can believe it but I can't agree that, by definition, the universe cannot be infinite because it has a beginning and is expanding. This perfectly describes an infinite series. Consider the series of positive integers, starting from 0... Are you saying that there is a number, a positive integer, to which you cannot add 1, to make a larger number?

6) Finally, I believe there are at least five dimensions in our observable universe. The first four are obvious, but I believe the fifth is also obvious. Specifically, if there are plank units of space, and plank units of time, then the space between any two such units is clearly out of time.

So I give you the Big Jump. My own silly hypothesis illustrated by a 'thought experiment'. Assume two equal amounts of mass accelerated from point A to point B using different amounts of accelerative force. We know from experimental evidence the one with greater applied energy will arrive first. However, we also know that neither of the two accelerated objects will move an infinite number of points between the two places.

Instead, according to quantum mechanics, each will jump from one small place to the next in some sort of sequence. In otherwords, they simply dissapear from one place and then reapear at another. So why does one get to the destination first? I suspect the one with greater applied acceleration has the advantage of slower time due to increased mass.

Accordingly, the various Plank Units for the faster one are simply expanded [both mass and time] more then the slower units with less applied energy. This all takes place outside of time according to the observation of each observer.

This is all much more debatable. An object's instantaneous movement through space can be summed into a single vector, and the phenomenon of relativistic time dilation indicates that this spatial movement vector can further be summed with the temporal movement vector such that the sum always equals 'c'. If there was an additional dimension that was not already summed with any of the known spatial and temporal dimensions, but which had an effect upon us, it would also have to show up in the characteristics of relativistic time-dilation, and it doesn't. In any case though, if you're talking about 'gaps' between successive positions in either space or time why should they constitute an additional dimension? The 'gaps' run along the known spatial and temporal axis and seem to be part of them, rather than part of an additional dimension.

The idea of something moving in discrete steps, without passing through all the possible points between two points, does seem true for objects that are precisely defined though. For example, if an object can be precisely defined to be at point 0 and then moves to point 1, any amount of movement from 0 must be greater than 0, so even if the degree of movement were to be infinitely small it would still mean that the object would have had to make a discrete jump from 0 to a non-0 point. However, if you start looking at the Planck units as candidates for your minimum size 'jumps' you then find that the minimum speed that anything could move at would be 'c', because one Planck Distance unit covered in one Planck Time unit = 'c'.

Obviously then, if you think of a tiny non-zero mass particle, which moves at sub-lightspeed, it must be either doing things in less than one Planck Time unit, or it must be composed of a sufficient number of sub-particles so that sub-lightspeed velocities can be achieved statistically i.e. if a particle consisted of two sub-particles and only one of them moves during each Planck Time 'tick' then you'd get c/2 instead of c. The problem with this statistical approach though, is that if an object were to be able to accelerate smoothly and continuously it would need to consist of an infinite number of sub-particles otherwise the acceleration would occur in discrete steps.

The simplest solution for continuous acceleration then, is that the object cannot be precisely defined and doesn't exist at a single point along the axis, but is instead smeared out along it, with the object existing to differing degrees at different point along the axis. There are of course, problems with this model too, for if you can say that an imprecisely defined object exists 'here' but not 'there' then there would seem to be a point between 'here' and 'there' where the presence of the smeared imprecise object reaches zero, which then represents a precise boundary and which brings us back to the discrete step problem again. It gets us a bit further forward though, even if we just end up having to say that the boundary too, as well as the location, cannot be precisely defined.

Actually there is another possible solution, but that requires both space and time to be finite. In this case, the degree of existence, or presence, of an object or event extends to both the start and end points of a finite length spatial or temporal axis. You obviously run into problems if you try to do this with infinite length axis or with axis that are expanding, although an expanding spatial axis is less of a problem than an expanding temporal axis because events in the past would be getting further away from each other in time as the curves stretched out; this is ok for space though [

]