Special Relativity and Black Holes

[NewDescartes]

Whoops, I got things backwards here--the light would actually be highly blueshifted as the object approached you, contrary to what NewDescartes was saying. Only when it was moving away from you would it be highly redshifted.

Yeah I caught that, but I understood what you meant. Yes, objects moving away from you would be red shifted at close to C, to the point of non visibility. This explain's "[URL paradox[/URL].

All I am arguing is that if matter travels at velocity C, it is a black hole. Sure the original mass of the object is invariant, but the energy needed to accelerate the object to C is infinite. A black hole is needed to accelerate mass to light speed. Reference points are irrelevant due to the inability of information to pass.

Special Relativity alone accounts for black holes. General Relativity is not needed.

 

[JesseM]

All I am arguing is that if matter travels at velocity C, it is a black hole. Sure the original mass of the object is invariant, but the energy needed to accelerate the object to C is infinite.

Well, that's exactly why it's impossible to have a massive object moving at c in SR.

A black hole is needed to accelerate mass to light speed.

How can a black hole accelerate mass to light speed? This certainly isn't true in general relativity, and in pure special relativity there is no spacetime curvature and thus no gravity to alter the motion of nearby objects.

This also seems like weird circular reasoning--you say a black hole is a massive object moving at light speed, but you also say a black hole is needed to accelerate massive objects to light speed in the first place?

 

[NewDescartes]

Well, that's exactly why it's impossible to have a massive object moving at c in SR.

How can a black hole accelerate mass to light speed? This certainly isn't true in general relativity, and in pure special relativity there is no spacetime curvature and thus no gravity to alter the motion of nearby objects.

This also seems like weird circular reasoning--you say a black hole is a massive object moving at light speed, but you also say a black hole is needed to accelerate massive objects to light speed in the first place?

If you are interested I'll share my logic with you. I don't want to come off as promoting a crackpot theory and get banned. I know how closed minded physics is and am struggling to convince Science and Nature to publish my work. The problem is I am more of a philosopher than a physicist. I do have some Mathematical proofs to show, and a descent idea for some experiments and possible predictions for results.

 

[George Jones]

I'm closing this thread, which, as indicated by its title, has never been about mainstream relativity.

Physics Forums rules,

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=5374,

in part, state

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion. Posts deleted under this rule will be accompanied by a private message from a Staff member, and, if appropriate, an invitation to resubmit the post in accordance with our Independent Research Guidelines. Poorly formulated personal theories, unfounded challenges of mainstream science, and overt crackpottery will not be tolerated anywhere on the site.

Independent Research Guidelines:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=82301.