0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Your mathematical caution concerning infinities is insteresting. My point is that anything that has a begining can not be infinite, since it will always have an age. The accumulating age might be everlasting, but that does not generate an infinite age.

Acceleration and motion through space sort of stump me. You mention matter sort of 'smears' along but I find this unsatisfying. And my consideration of a fith dimension as a sort of resting place also seems consistent with entangle particles. A dimension out of time seems to solve all sorts of conumdrums regarding getting from A to B without going nuts.

My general hypothesis is the simple conservation of mass/energy. A black hole seems nothing more then eintsienien extension of Newton. Mass both accelerates and accumulates to such an extent it looks wierd, but is entirely consistent with known physics. Nothing infinite about any of it.