# speed of light vs infinite density

#### Hareborn

Could anyone assist a novice? With the speed of light standing at 186,000 miles per second and the Parker Solar Probe currently the fastest human-made object at approximately 400,000 miles per hour, humanity has barely touched the speed of light practically. How can we be confident in the assertion that mass increases infinitely as objects approach the speed of light, a cornerstone of Einstein's Theory of Relativity? While this theory works seamlessly in everyday scenarios, it falters when confronted with extremes such as the infinite density of a black hole. Our understanding largely stems from measurements involving photons and cosmic rays, but how can we be certain this principle holds true universally? Analogously, while 2+2 consistently equals 4, the sum of two non-integer numbers may vary, suggesting a need for scrutiny. Particle accelerators like hadron colliders propel protons to speeds reaching 99.9999991% of the speed of light, seemingly close to the threshold of infinite mass. However, if mass indeed becomes infinite at the speed of light, these accelerated protons should theoretically be infinitesimally close to infinite mass, a discrepancy that warrants examination.

Last edited:

#### Atlan0001

Could anyone assist a novice? With the speed of light standing at 186,000 miles per second and the Parker Solar Probe currently the fastest human-made object at approximately 400,000 miles per hour, humanity has barely touched the speed of light practically. How can we be confident in the assertion that mass increases infinitely as objects approach the speed of light, a cornerstone of Einstein's Theory of Relativity? While this theory works seamlessly in everyday scenarios, it falters when confronted with extremes such as the infinite density of a black hole. Our understanding largely stems from measurements involving photons and cosmic rays, but how can we be certain this principle holds true universally? Analogously, while 2+2 consistently equals 4, the sum of two non-integer numbers may vary, suggesting a need for scrutiny. Particle accelerators like hadron colliders propel protons to speeds reaching 99.9999991% of the speed of light, seemingly close to the threshold of infinite mass. However, if mass indeed becomes infinite at the speed of light, these accelerated protons should theoretically be infinitesimally close to infinite mass, a discrepancy that warrants examination.
In an open system you never come closer to the speed of light than (+/-)*300,000kps from an infinite floater, relative rest ('0').

Squashing mass pressures in a quantum boxed-bottled closed and closing system to a 2-d flattening and/or 1-d point can equate to a non-constant speed of light relative to the increasingly in-drawing pressurizing environment. Squashing mass pressures that don't exist in an open and/or opening system (accelerating in expansion) where the speed of light in the vacuum will be and remain a constant "constant" relative to an infinite floater, relative rest ('0').

Last edited:

#### Questioner

A near luminal proton has near infinite relative mass to the stationary observer, but to the moving proton's POV it just has standard/resting proton mass.

A black hole has infinite density which means (virtually?) all the space has been wrung out of it.
Its resting mass is incredible, but not infinite.

Since I think mass actually shrinks space to lower dimension it makes me wonder what happens to light when it crosses a BH's event horizon. Would it compress light and force it to become some kind of matter? Bending and folding/crumpling light back on itself? Taking vector inertia and fabricating contained substance out of it? Could that be the cause of the 'dark matter halo'? Strange 'matter' that produces a strange additional mass curve?

My use of 'near infinite' is an oxymoron. Like 'a little bit pregnant' it's an exclusively discrete binary differentiation, not a spectrum of conditions.

#### Questioner

PS perhaps you meant irrational rather than non-integer to infer indeterminacy of summation?

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Hareborn:
While this theory works seamlessly in everyday scenarios, it falters when confronted with extremes such as the infinite density of a black hole.

Well,
So when we think of mass as energy, we can begin to understand why an object will increase its ‘mass’ as it speeds up. As an object increases in speed, so does the amount of energy that it has, this energy is what we refer to as ‘the increase in mass’ (just remember, this is inertial mass).

Ref: Why Mass Increases with Speed | Futurism

Some may disagree, but I really believe that the words infinity and infinite are inappropriate when applied to "reality". They are mathematical concepts arising, for example, from division by zero. This does not work in the "real" world.

If something were "infinite", there could be no room for anything else (by definition). Hence, in my humble opinion, it has no meaning outside mathematics.

If you want to translate "infinite" into "real" language, use very, very large, or, even, "incredibly large" (not my favourite, but better than infinite). Hope this helps.

Cat

#### Questioner

A proton approaching light speed could have more relative mass than a galactic black hole's resting mass.
I'm not even sure what that means.
I suppose when time stops altogether that is infinite mass?

#### Classical Motion

A proton can never gain that much mass. That's not way way it works. When you push a proton it gains mass. But there is a limit. At right before c, the proton will take ALL of the stimulus and cast it off. This is because the proton has a limit to how much it can contract. Once it reaches that limit, it emits all the stimulus given to it. It spins it away.

A proton will "reflect" all of the acceleration given to it. And at that point the proton will be as heavy as it can get. The spin of the proton limits it's size. And this is why no mass can exceed c.

If the proton could contract more than it does, it would surpass c.

When you accelerate e+, a portion of the acceleration vector is converted to angular direction instead of linear acceleration. So the acceleration increases the spin instead of the speed. This makes the e+ contract.

And now the acceleration force has a much smaller target area for acceleration because of the shrinkage.

Does that make any sense?

Not only is e+ getting heavier, it's getting smaller. And spinning faster.

#### Atlan0001

Infinite : Infinitesimal : Infinity : Infinities : Finite : Finites : Zero : Potential:

Do you get it?! If not, too bad.

#### Classical Motion

I don't think mass gain prevents c. I think the spin does. After being accelerated, the spin speed can match the acceleration speed. So fundamentally.....the acceleration is diverted. With that spin.

Solution. Intermittent acceleration. The proton contracts in steps. Stop acceleration before the step is reached. This will let the proton re-settle to the previous spin speed and not lock in that faster spin. While still keeping the linear velocity. Then hit it again, just to the point of contraction again.

We accelerate it in between contractions. It keeps it's velocity and does not gain "mass".

The ratchet steps of contraction follow quantum steps. SO the intermittence of the acceleration(duty cycle) has to be custom tuned. For the present or started state of proton.

But we still can't exceed c. For we have nothing faster to push with.

#### Catastrophe

##### "Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
From my post #5,

Some may disagree, but I really believe that the words infinity and infinite are inappropriate when applied to "reality". They are mathematical concepts arising, for example, from division by zero. This does not work in the "real" world.

If something were "infinite", there could be no room for anything else (by definition). Hence, in my humble opinion, it has no meaning outside mathematics.

If you want to translate "infinite" into "real" language, use very, very large, or, even, "incredibly large" (not my favourite, but better than infinite). Hope this helps.

As stated, this is just my belief. Many, many words have different meanings, or different shades of meaning. For example, if we take a more complete dictionary reading of one word, we find:

Infinite Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

### infinite​

1 of 2

in·fi·nite ˈin-fə-nət

Synonyms of infinite

1

: extending indefinitely : ENDLESS

infinite space

2

: immeasurably or inconceivably great or extensive : INEXHAUSTIBLE

infinite patience

3

: subject to no limitation or external determination

4

a

:
extending beyond, lying beyond, or being greater than any preassigned finite value however large

infinite number of positive numbers

b

:
extending to infinity

infinite plane surface

c

:
characterized by an infinite number of elements or terms

an infinite set

an infinite series

infiniteness noun

infinite

2 of 2

### noun​

: something that is infinite (as in extent, duration, or number)

### Examples of infinite in a Sentence​

Adjective an infinite series of numbers She has infinite patience when she's dealing with children. There seemed to be an infinite number of possibilities .an infinite variety of choices

Of course, one may choose one meaning only, but one can, then, not say that this is the only meaning. When I put the following I was partly in error by this definition. I should have put should be inappropriate. My emphasis.

Some may disagree, but I really believe that the words infinity and infinite are inappropriate when applied to "reality". They are mathematical concepts arising, for example, from division by zero. This does not work in the "real" world.

What one must not do is confuse, or mix up, the two cases. In the above, there are both cases: "an infinite series of numbers" is mathematical, and "She has infinite patience" is non-mathematical. In my case, I choose to use infinite only in the mathematical sense. That is because I prefer to use the most accurate choice, where possible, in communication.

In the case of infinity, the noun, the situation is much easier:
1.
the state or quality of being infinite.
"the infinity of space"

2.
MATHEMATICS
a number greater than any assignable quantity or countable number (symbol ∞).
"the transmission approaches 100% as the frequency tends to infinity"

I am not sure that the first example does not imply a mathematical connection. We are not in a position to know whether space is, or is not, infinite – or even whether we are able to understand what this might mean.

Cat

Last edited:

Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
40
Views
12K
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K