BenRayfield
MAIN THEORY: The same way no observed thing moves faster than light, regardless of your inertial frame (you could be moving toward or away from light but it still looks the same constant speed relative to you), no observed particle is ever more than 1.0-planck particles, and gradually between not observing and observing it varies between 0.0+planck particles and 1.0-planck particles the same way speed varies between 0.0+planck and 1.0-planck times the speed of light. This applies equally to mass, energy, and wavefunction-collapse from different angles and is subject to Heisenberg Uncertainty at all extremes.

* Mass's relativity limit gets infinitely difficult toward space, since it takes infinite energy to move mass as fast as light. We thought mass could go the speed-of-light, but instead we got Hawking Radiation and turbulence on the event-horizon of black-holes, and on top of that all black holes must evaporate and/or explode before any of the particles get to the event-horizon which happens from our point of view at the end of time.

* Energy's relativity limit gets infinitely difficult toward time, since it takes infinite energy to slow light to a halt. At a large cost of creating fields for the light to move through, we slowed down light and put it in a container, but we couldn't prove it was completely stopped because of Heisenberg Uncertainty.

* Wavefunction-collapse's relativity limit gets infinitely difficult toward becoming exactly 1.0 particles, which we call observing. We observed a wave collapse into exactly 1.0 particles, but we couldn't prove its exactly 1.0 particles because of Heisenberg Uncertainty and not knowing if it was in superposition just after we approximately observed it.

In all of these things, science has come very close, and in all such cases, the failure was categorized as Heisenberg Uncertainty.
END MAIN THEORY.

SECOND MOST IMPORTANT THEORY: Heisenberg Uncertainty becomes less uncertain as you view the same wavefunction from many angles at once, as a purely wave based model which denies the existence of quanta and explains the appearance of quanta as a generalization of special relativity. Regardless of your inertial frame, all light appears constant speed and all particles appear to be quanta.

FACT: Escape-velocity at the event-horizon of a black hole is the speed-of-light.

FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole.

FACT: The smallest possible black hole is "planck mass" and all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes that way, as recent experiments have created small black-holes that evaporate within a tiny fraction of a second. Of course these are not dangerous.

FACT: An outside observer sees anything falling into a black-hole slow down as it nears the event-horizon and never fall in.

FACT: The speed of observed light is also the maximum speed of observed mass and all other known observed particle/wave types and is constant.

FACT: The speed of unobserved light and other unobserved parts of the world has already been proven to affect eachother extremely faster than light, which we call quantum entanglement.

FACT: The billions of lightyears of universe we've seen so far is 1 big quantum wavefunction. Everything is connected to everything else.

FACT: The only way to observe a particle/wave is to throw a black-hole near it, which is proven by the fact that "all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes".

FACT: Throwing a black-hole near something causes it to be time-dilated slower as viewed from an outside observer.

FACT: Double-slit experiment is when you throw a black-hole through 2 slits simultaneously and it wave-interferes with itself, as proven by "all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes".

FACT: Wavefunction-collapse is what we call multiple superpositioned black-holes becoming individual black-hole(s), as proven by "all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes", which are merged into a single quantum-wavefunction which we call our shared reality, but we are only certain of this to the point of Heisenberg Uncertainty.

(In other words, to proceed with us into our future, the 2 waves must start to agree with eachother enough that all disagreements are small, since we can't have contradictions build on top of other contradictions, because that is an exponential acceleration toward heat-death.)

FACT: Gravity-waves are what we call multiple large black-holes becoming 1 bigger black-hole.

FACT: Quantum-superpositioned black-holes do not affect our light-cone from positions they cancel-out their own wave, which we call the dark parts of the back wall (and other cancelled-out parts of the wave in the space between) on double-slit experiments.

FACT: Gravity-waves do not affect our light-cone until they reach us at the speed-of-light.

THEORY: Quantum-superpositioned black-holes do not affect our light-cone until the closest part of their wavefunction reaches us at the speed-of-light.

THEORY: There is no difference between gravity-waves and quantum-superposition-waves.

THEORY: Special-relativity applies equally to particles/waves/black-holes accelerating up to the speed-of-light in space and particles/waves/black-holes accelerating up to wavefunction-collapse in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space, in the context of our path through multiverse possibilities being another kind of space.

THEORY: Heisenberg-uncertainty is a superposition of the "planck mass" view of all particles/waves/black-holes.

FACT: M-Theory is whats common between 5 different String-Theories which were found to say the same thing in 5 different ways, each having parts of the puzzle, with enough overlap to put it together.

THEORY: All particle/boson/fermion/force types in the Standard Model of physics, and all the specific dimensions and behaviors of physics described by M-Theory, are the local laws-of-physics, where each observed particle/wave/black-hole of each type (like observing an electron or graviton) are a superposition of the parts of physics which define that type (like a physical object which all electrons are a superposition of) as a particle/wave/black-hole of large mass located in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space, and the mass of that particle/wave/black-hole representing the type is exactly equal to the mass of all examples of that type as its superposition, so in general the superposition and collapsed form of x are both simultaneously x and not 2 different things.

FACT: In Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments, part of the experiment which happens in the future appears to affect part of the experiment in the present.

THEORY: The reason that "in Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser experiments, part of the experiment which happens in the future appears to affect part of the experiment in the present", is that "in general the superposition and collapsed form of x are both simultaneously x and not 2 different things", specificly the collapsed form in the present and superpositioned form in the future are identical.

THEORY: Conditional on in general "the collapsed form in the present and superpositioned form in the future are identical" being true, the theory that time is a good model of how the world works at quantum sizes would be disproven, and time would only be an approximation of how the world works on a larger scale.

FACT: M-Theory predicts gravitons are what carries the force of gravity, and gravitons are closed manifolds.

THEORY: In the context of this purely wave based model of the universe which denies the existence of quanta (its just another form of relativity), all closed manifolds are only approximately closed due to Heisenberg Uncertainty and are subject to heat-death like everything else, and closed manifolds implement gravity in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space because they are the only kind of structure that can survive moving through the variety of parts-of-wavefunctions which represent the variety of different kinds of things which gravity attracts together, and they both attract and repel depending on wave-interference of resonance between all things involved. Galaxies accelerate away from us, while closer things attract eachother, as a simple example of equal and opposite force in timeless whole-universe thermodynamics. It all has to cancel-out to zero.

THEORY: Because "Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities", which is my philosophy of the universe overall, all forms of relativity are caused by thermodynamics being equally spread in the set of all possible wavefunctions, therefore regardless of your inertial frame, light speed and quanta are always 1.0 (times the speed of light or number of observed particles at a time), so all of physics is formed from the simpler properties of math we call thermodynamics and quantum-entanglement of waves in general. Space, time, mass, energy, particles, the Standard Model, M-Theory, and all other specific observations of our local laws of physics, are an example of what can happen when special-relativity happens recursively and in many combinations in an infinite space of quantum chaos that forms into the patterns we call reality. All forms of special-relativity are purely a result of timeless thermodynamics in infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space.

FACT: The Casimir Effect is the physical force on 2 very close parallel metal plates as absorbed from "virtual particles".

THEORY: The Casimir Effect has only been observed to receive physical force from "virtual particles", similar to the metal plates acting as a radio, but it can also be used to transmit signals into these "virtual particle" waves if a bigger variety of inputs to the metal plates are considered, not just electricity or motion. What if we tried many combinations of our newest quantum technology, and new technology later, to oscillate the relativistic mass, time-dilation, quantum phase, particle types, superposition, and oscillate other properties of physics in the parallel metal plates? Would it broadcast in a variety of ways into the "virtual particle" part of this wavefunction we call reality? Would it be a multiverse radio, in the space of "infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space" (as I explained above)?
BenRayfield
THEORY: Conditional on the Casimir-Effect-based "multiverse radio" working as a simultaneous high-dimensional (1 dimension for each property of physics you're oscillating), very spread out grids of such radios could be used for more accuracy, the same way a few telescopes can be used simultaneously to get some of the accuracy of one telescope the size of the distance between its parts.

THEORY: Conditional on using grids of such "multiverse radios", in a many-dimensional way, you could put them in an approximate closed manifold (like a sphere or klein-bottle or peterson-graph shape, depending on how you want to align to light-cones) shape in space, and gradually form the near space into a large closed manifold (which you may call a graviton, but more generally than M-Theory's kind of gravitons), and that bubble of space would be a timeless solution to "Einsteins Field Equations" and able to travel through infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space (which includes space, time, and other laws of physics continuously) safely. In theory, this is how you would build a warp drive, time machine, and multiverse ship, all in the same ship. This ship would take very little energy because the grid of "multiverse radios" is a closed manifold, so it gets to slide through the multiverse as easily as gravitons. Do gravitons even need a power source?

THEORY ABOUT WHY THIS IS SAFE: Conditional on the "multiverse ship" (which travels through space, time, and other laws of physics using very little energy, like gravitons do) working, the danger of such experiments is mostly in the local area of the ship, which may change the laws of physics and vaporize the galaxy into hawking radiation, while outside observers would see it disappear and experience waves, as if a drop of water had left a mostly still pond. The laws of physics would only change for those who navigate on continuous paths into parts of infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space with different physics. They and we would be a superposition of our shared history, but remember that "in general the superposition and collapsed form of x are both simultaneously x and not 2 different things".

To summarize all of this, all inertial frames see waves as quanta, all parts of reality we know of formed from timeless thermodynamics and quantum entanglement between waves in general, and we should redefine the idea of light-cone to include the local laws-of-physics.
BenRayfield
THEORY: The Higgs Boson is all black-holes, and all particles/waves are black-holes. It is mass itself, not the part of physics which gives other parts of physics mass. This timeless infinitely-manyworlds-multiverse-space we call reality is 1 big wave which cancels-out to zero. The amplitude of that wave is its mass, and since we're always inside it, we see that amplitude as 1.0 quanta, the number of realities which exist. You did not find the Higgs Boson in the CERN supercollider as expected because you refused to consider a timeless fractal universe where all particles/waves are black-holes and are inside and superpositioned outside and mixed many ways with eachother. To the question of "Does the Higgs Boson exist?", I must answer nonsequitur... The Higgs Boson is the universe itself, and the universe cancels-out to zero while its individual parts exist. The Higgs Boson is therefore the only particle which exists in superposition but not collapsed form (which is what I meant by "Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities"), therefore tips the scale of infinite balance into all possibilities of chaos (which together still cancel-out to zero) which we call Heisenberg Uncertainty. Therefore, if you observed every particle in the universe except 1, Heisenberg Uncertainty would be absolutely forced to certainly tell you it is exactly the remaining possibility. That is the power of the Higgs Boson, also known as the universe. Scientists probably meant Higgs Boson in a more specific way about M-Theory, but this is the closest I can translate to a purely wave-based model.

THEORY: The 2 most basic particle types are Higgs Boson (generalizes to the whole universe, a mobius-like paradox because "Nonexistence is isomorphic to the set of all self-consistent possibilities.") and graviton (generalizes to any closed manifold). Higgs Boson is to Graviton as Klein Bottle is to Sphere or Donut, and there are an infinite and continuous variety of higher dimensional combinations, which together cancel-out to zero. A Klein Bottle is a circle on one dimension and a mobius on the other dimension. What do you get when you go at other angles and use many of them together? Irrational manifolds, something we're just getting started thinking about, like using an infinitely thin version of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_winding_of_a_torus instead of a mobius to create the Klein Bottle, but we don't need to get into that level of complexity to understand the most basic ways to use the Higgs Boson. But I would like somebody to verify the the proof of the Poincare Conjecture (1 of 7 millenium problems, million dollar prize each) also covers all possibilities of irrational manifolds, if any such manifolds apply. The "multiverse ship" described in theories above uses Higgs Boson to form a local area of space into Graviton.
Ed Wood
QUOTE (BenRayfield+Apr 23 2012, 03:28 PM)
THEORY: The Higgs Boson is all black-holes,

I like this bit.

I have suggested it before.

I don't know what I think 'bout the rest of it yet.

AlexG
QUOTE
FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole.

Fact: This means nothing.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole.

Fact: This means nothing.

FACT: The smallest possible black hole is "planck mass" and all particles/waves can be modeled as black-holes that way, as recent experiments have created small black-holes that evaporate within a tiny fraction of a second. Of course these are not dangerous.

Fact: There have been no such hole made in any experiment.

Fact: There are simply too many erroneous statements in the preceding posts to bother correcting them one by one.

Word salad, served in the large, family size.
BenRayfield
QUOTE
Fact: This means nothing.

Every part of the universe is connected to every other part, which we call a wavefunction. Everything means something to everything else.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Fact: This means nothing.

Every part of the universe is connected to every other part, which we call a wavefunction. Everything means something to everything else.

Fact: There have been no such hole made in any experiment.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, even though in this case there is evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron
QUOTE
This idea is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate geodesic motion as part of general relativity.

If Einstein thought it could be true, isn't that a good reason to research until its proven or disproven, not just ignored because you don't have evidence?

The evidence I speak of is various news articles I've read in the past which said such small black holes were created in laboratories, which probably meant they were solutions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations or related math.

A simple search finds so much of it I didn't think it would be challenged:
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE This idea is substantiated within a series of papers published by Albert Einstein between 1927 and 1949. In them, he showed that if elementary particles were treated as singularities in spacetime, it was unnecessary to postulate geodesic motion as part of general relativity.

If Einstein thought it could be true, isn't that a good reason to research until its proven or disproven, not just ignored because you don't have evidence?

The evidence I speak of is various news articles I've read in the past which said such small black holes were created in laboratories, which probably meant they were solutions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations or related math.

A simple search finds so much of it I didn't think it would be challenged:
Artificial black hole created in lab - physicsworld.com
physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/33256
Mar 6, 2008 – Everyone knows the score with black holes: even if light strays too close, the immense gravity will drag it inside, never to be seen again.

Artificial Black Hole Created in Chinese Lab - Technology Review
www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/24234/
Oct 14, 2009 – Cloaking technology used to create a region of space that allows microwaves in, but not out again.

Physicists Create Black Hole 'Light' in Lab - ScienceNOW
news.sciencemag.org › News › ScienceNOW › November 2010
Nov 12, 2010 – Now you see it. Physicists fired polarized laser pulses at a block of glass, creating distortions that emitted Hawking radiation out the sides of the ...

Pseudo Black Hole Created in Lab | Space.com
www.space.com/7438-pseudo-black-hole-created-lab.html
Oct 27, 2009 – Researchers have simulated a mini black hole in the lab, though luckily not the kind that could swallow up the Earth. This pseudo black hole ...

#79: Sonic Black Hole Created in Lab | Light | DISCOVER Magazine
discovermagazine.com/2010/jan-feb/079
Dec 22, 2009 – No atoms could escape the void within the cloud: “It's like trying to swim upstream in a river whose current is faster than you.”. Visit Discover ...

Physicists create sonic black hole in the lab
phys.org/news/2011-01-physicists-sonic-black-hole-lab.html
Jan 10, 2011 – (PhysOrg.com) -- Black holes get their name because they absorb all incoming light, and are so dense that none of that light can escape their ...

Black hole effect created in lab - Technology & science - Space ...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/.../ns/.../t/black-hole-effect-created-lab/
Mar 6, 2008 – This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color represents radiation pouring out from material ...

Black Hole Accretion Disk Created in the Lab - Softpedia
news.softpedia.com › News › Science › Space
Tudor Vieru by Tudor Vieru · More by Tudor Vieru
Oct 21, 2009 – Black holes are known to be the remnants of massive stars' collapsed cores, which fall under their own weight to an area of intense gravity that ...

Artificial Black Hole Created in Chinese Lab | Popular Science
www.popsci.com/technology/article/.../black-hole-fits-your-pocket
Oct 15, 2009 – Just because most black holes are solar-system-sized maelstroms with reality-warping gravitational pulls doesn't mean you can't have one in ...

Mini BLACK HOLE Created In Lab -GIANT Leap Towards REAL Time ...
1 post - 1 author - Apr 5, 2010
Check out the article: April 9, 2010. Black Hole Created An artificial "black hole" designed to capture wayward atoms has been created. It paves ...

If you still want to challenge it, I'll find stronger evidence, but so far you have offered no evidence at all against my theory, only your opinion, very unscientific.

QUOTE
Fact: There are simply too many erroneous statements in the preceding posts to bother correcting them one by one.

Then I'll be satisfied with the first error in my theory, not something you think is irrelevant, but something you prove is wrong with evidence of the opposite.
AlexG
Ah yes, the cry of the crank: "Prove me wrong".

BTW, did you actually read any of the articles you cite? There have been no gravitational black holes created. Just analogs, which mimic some aspects of a black hole.
brucep
QUOTE (BenRayfield+Apr 24 2012, 10:55 PM)

Every part of the universe is connected to every other part, which we call a wavefunction. Everything means something to everything else.

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense, even though in this case there is evidence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole_electron

If Einstein thought it could be true, isn't that a good reason to research until its proven or disproven, not just ignored because you don't have evidence?

The evidence I speak of is various news articles I've read in the past which said such small black holes were created in laboratories, which probably meant they were solutions to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equations or related math.

A simple search finds so much of it I didn't think it would be challenged:

If you still want to challenge it, I'll find stronger evidence, but so far you have offered no evidence at all against my theory, only your opinion, very unscientific.

Then I'll be satisfied with the first error in my theory, not something you think is irrelevant, but something you prove is wrong with evidence of the opposite.

It's a hypothesis not a theory. A very stupid hypothesis to boot.
BenRayfield
QUOTE
There have been no gravitational black holes created. Just analogs, which mimic some aspects of a black hole.

The exact amount of gravity expected was observed, which is approximately 0 since gravity is such a small force. Gravity applies to all particles. This is the amount of gravity expected.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE There have been no gravitational black holes created. Just analogs, which mimic some aspects of a black hole.

The exact amount of gravity expected was observed, which is approximately 0 since gravity is such a small force. Gravity applies to all particles. This is the amount of gravity expected.

Ah yes, the cry of the crank: "Prove me wrong".

Isn't that what you're saying to me? Prove the model you already think is correct wrong or it will continue to be thought the most accurate even though it describes many things as random and unknowable, like Heisenberg Uncertainty?

My theory isn't actually that far from the existing model. If certain things turn out to be smooth, it may best be modeled as a fractal length-contraction space, which is like a fractal minkowski space except without time.
AlexG
QUOTE
Isn't that what you're saying to me? Prove the model you already think is correct wrong or it will continue to be thought the most accurate even though it describes many things as random and unknowable, like Heisenberg Uncertainty?

The model we think is accurate produces verifiable predictions, as well as technologically useful data. That's why we think it's accurate.

All you're doing is hand waving.
brucep
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 23 2012, 04:30 PM)

Fact: This means nothing.

Fact: There have been no such hole made in any experiment.

Fact: There are simply too many erroneous statements in the preceding posts to bother correcting them one by one.

Word salad, served in the large, family size.

I'm trying to figure out how something can fall into the black hole if maximum density reigns at the event horizon. Maximum density? He must mean it's denser than the space between his ears.
Ed Wood
All inertial frames see waves as quanta

If by that you mean Light/EM radiation and time is quantized by Mass I don't have a problem with that.

There are problems with the rest of it.

A non gravitational black hole has no gravity so I think you need to come up with another example of a lab created gravitational black hole.

BenRayfield
QUOTE
I'm trying to figure out how something can fall into the black hole if maximum density reigns at the event horizon.

Nothing can ever fall into a black hole. It is a fact that every black hole must evaporate into hawking radiation and/or explode before the end of time (also known as heat death), and it is also a fact that the end of time is quickly experienced by anything falling into a black hole in the limit of approaching the event horizon, therefore anything falling into a black hole will see it evaporate and/or explode just before it would have fallen in.

Nothing ever moves or affects things faster than light, including entanglement, because that is instead slower than light through shorter paths in the infinite dimensions and all patterns defined by "all self-consistent possibilities". See Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" for a similar definition of "all self-consistent possibilities".

Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is therefore excused from explaining any contradictions resulting from faster than light movement, anything past event horizons, and related discontinuities. Those things are nonsequitur because all claimed faster than light observations have been measured against theories which contain more than 0 contradictions, especially the theory that time is a property of the universe at the deepest level instead of only a local approximation.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I'm trying to figure out how something can fall into the black hole if maximum density reigns at the event horizon.

Nothing can ever fall into a black hole. It is a fact that every black hole must evaporate into hawking radiation and/or explode before the end of time (also known as heat death), and it is also a fact that the end of time is quickly experienced by anything falling into a black hole in the limit of approaching the event horizon, therefore anything falling into a black hole will see it evaporate and/or explode just before it would have fallen in.

Nothing ever moves or affects things faster than light, including entanglement, because that is instead slower than light through shorter paths in the infinite dimensions and all patterns defined by "all self-consistent possibilities". See Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" for a similar definition of "all self-consistent possibilities".

Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is therefore excused from explaining any contradictions resulting from faster than light movement, anything past event horizons, and related discontinuities. Those things are nonsequitur because all claimed faster than light observations have been measured against theories which contain more than 0 contradictions, especially the theory that time is a property of the universe at the deepest level instead of only a local approximation.

All inertial frames see waves as quanta

If by that you mean Light/EM radiation and time is quantized by Mass I don't have a problem with that.

Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory defines mass as amplitude of any part of the universal wave (which is all self-consistent possibilities together), and since we are all part of that wave, its amplitude is relative to itself therefore is experienced as 1.0 (quanta) at every point of its surface.

I do not know if we are agreeing or not, since the phrase "is quantized" is ambiguous without first agreeing on a definition of time and wavefunction-collapse.

To everyone, I agree Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is incomplete, and I will find more specific evidence and equations before continuing this thread. It may take a long time, but I think I've vaguely defined a good research path to explore.
brucep
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 2 2012, 11:31 PM)

Nothing can ever fall into a black hole. It is a fact that every black hole must evaporate into hawking radiation and/or explode before the end of time (also known as heat death), and it is also a fact that the end of time is quickly experienced by anything falling into a black hole in the limit of approaching the event horizon, therefore anything falling into a black hole will see it evaporate and/or explode just before it would have fallen in.

Nothing ever moves or affects things faster than light, including entanglement, because that is instead slower than light through shorter paths in the infinite dimensions and all patterns defined by "all self-consistent possibilities". See Max Tegmark's "Mathematical Universe Hypothesis" for a similar definition of "all self-consistent possibilities".

Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is therefore excused from explaining any contradictions resulting from faster than light movement, anything past event horizons, and related discontinuities. Those things are nonsequitur because all claimed faster than light observations have been measured against theories which contain more than 0 contradictions, especially the theory that time is a property of the universe at the deepest level instead of only a local approximation.

Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory defines mass as amplitude of any part of the universal wave (which is all self-consistent possibilities together), and since we are all part of that wave, its amplitude is relative to itself therefore is experienced as 1.0 (quanta) at every point of its surface.

I do not know if we are agreeing or not, since the phrase "is quantized" is ambiguous without first agreeing on a definition of time and wavefunction-collapse.

To everyone, I agree Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory is incomplete, and I will find more specific evidence and equations before continuing this thread. It may take a long time, but I think I've vaguely defined a good research path to explore.

Your pronunciations are bullshit. The maximum density is between your ears. Everything you just said is nonsense. Just like every other comic book gravitational physicists you forgot to learn GR. Because you don't know 'the rest of the story' you make a fool of yourself.
BenRayfield
brucep, science is not a democracy, so find a specific flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas.
flyingbuttressman
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 3 2012, 05:44 AM)
brucep, science is not a democracy, so find a specific flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas.

Science, on the other hand, does require evidence to back up ridiculous claims like those you made above. Your ideas on time dilation around a black hole go against common sense. As you approach the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down for the object falling in, meaning that the whole falling process can be instantaneous from their POV. From an outside observer's POV, the object just falls in.

Don't give us that "specific flaw" crap when your post is nothing but declarative statements.
brucep
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 3 2012, 09:44 AM)
brucep, science is not a democracy, so find a specific flaw in what I said or stop spamming your vote against my ideas.

GR isn't spam dumba\$\$. The nonsense you're posting is crackpot illiterate bullshit.
You're round filed in the first paragraph. By making a prediction which is in conflict with the predictions of GR you jettison your idea to the bottom of the waste basket. You be specific. What's your equations of state. Derive an equation of motion from your equation of state. If you can't then shut up.
Ed Wood
QUOTE (BenRayfield+May 2 2012, 11:31 PM)
Timeless Multiverse Relativity theory defines mass as amplitude of any part of the universal wave (which is all self-consistent possibilities together), and since we are all part of that wave, its amplitude is relative to itself therefore is experienced as 1.0 (quanta) at every point of its surface.
re.

Then it is incorrect or at best useless.
BenRayfield
brucep said in http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39477

QUOTE
Those who are familiar with physics know you're physics illiterate. You should figure out why on your own. Preferably from an accredited source. I objected to the irrelevant analogy. Since I'm very familiar with strong field physics I objected to your stupid claim that the surface of the event horizon is maximum density.

You said: "FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole."

I said: Fact: You're a pontificating ignoramus.

You can't fall into a black hole because just before you're about to fall in (quickly in your time and at the end of time for anyone watching you fall in) it evaporates into hawking radiation as all black holes must. Equations being continuous as they pass the event horizon does not mean those equations are more than a linear approximation. As the Holographic Principle explains, there is nothing inside event horizons, therefore density is maximized on event horizons. This fits perfectly with the part of Timeless Multiverse Relativity which says particles are black holes and they all get mixed together in many combinations as they fall into eachother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Those who are familiar with physics know you're physics illiterate. You should figure out why on your own. Preferably from an accredited source. I objected to the irrelevant analogy. Since I'm very familiar with strong field physics I objected to your stupid claim that the surface of the event horizon is maximum density.You said: "FACT: Density is maximized at the event-horizon of a black hole."I said: Fact: You're a pontificating ignoramus.

You can't fall into a black hole because just before you're about to fall in (quickly in your time and at the end of time for anyone watching you fall in) it evaporates into hawking radiation as all black holes must. Equations being continuous as they pass the event horizon does not mean those equations are more than a linear approximation. As the Holographic Principle explains, there is nothing inside event horizons, therefore density is maximized on event horizons. This fits perfectly with the part of Timeless Multiverse Relativity which says particles are black holes and they all get mixed together in many combinations as they fall into eachother.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle
The holographic principle is a property of quantum gravity and string theories which states that the description of a volume of space can be thought of as encoded on a boundary to the region—preferably a light-like boundary like a gravitational horizon.

QUOTE
GR isn't spam dumba\$\$.

I didn't say it is. You think I contradicted relativity. Nothing ever moves faster than light, so I didn't in that way. Anything which appears as inside a black hole is instead the Holographic Principle or in general black hole thermodynamics, so I don't see a contradiction there either.

Black holes evaporate into hawking radiation before its possible to fall past the event horizon, and if that contradicts relativity, then your argument is not with me and I suggest you get back to the books and solve the contradiction instead of complaining that I pointed out that fact.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE GR isn't spam dumba\$\$.

I didn't say it is. You think I contradicted relativity. Nothing ever moves faster than light, so I didn't in that way. Anything which appears as inside a black hole is instead the Holographic Principle or in general black hole thermodynamics, so I don't see a contradiction there either.

Black holes evaporate into hawking radiation before its possible to fall past the event horizon, and if that contradicts relativity, then your argument is not with me and I suggest you get back to the books and solve the contradiction instead of complaining that I pointed out that fact.

You be specific. What's your equations of state. Derive an equation of motion from your equation of state. If you can't then shut up.

I'm working on it and will get back to this thread when I have such equations (unless other challenges are made here that can be answered before that), but ideas of how everything fits together should come before the details in the form of equations.

flyingbuttressman
QUOTE
Science, on the other hand, does require evidence to back up ridiculous claims like those you made above.

I'll find specific references when I write a formal paper. Until then I expected people would be aware of these common facts in physics and why they are true.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Science, on the other hand, does require evidence to back up ridiculous claims like those you made above.

I'll find specific references when I write a formal paper. Until then I expected people would be aware of these common facts in physics and why they are true.

Your ideas on time dilation around a black hole go against common sense.

That's a good thing, because time dilation goes against common sense.

QUOTE
As you approach the event horizon of a black hole, time slows down for the object falling in, meaning that the whole falling process can be instantaneous from their POV. From an outside observer's POV, the object just falls in.

Yes. Where did I contradict that?
AlexG
QUOTE
You can't fall into a black hole because just before you're about to fall in (quickly in your time and at the end of time for anyone watching you fall in) it evaporates into hawking radiation as all black holes must

You've said this before, and it's not so. A three solar mass black hole would take about 10^64 years to evaportae due to hawking radiation, many orders of magnitude greater than the age of the universe. Time does not stop for an infalling object. Black Holes will only evaporate if the rate of Hawking radiation exceeds the rate of accreation. And the larger the black hole, the slower the rate of evaporation.

Learn some basic physics from a source other than wikipedia.
BenRayfield
I am not concerned with the long time it takes black holes to evaporate or how long that is compared to how long ago the big bang was. None of that changes my point, which we can continue debating in this thread: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=39487 "Black Hole Evaporation Vs Falling In". Please do not bring the arguing and name calling of this thread into that one. Its only for that one point.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.