tip

I was wondering what peoples inputs are on this, the second one. In addition, I am going to need help writing a new form of advanced mathematics to do some of these equations.

The sum of the molar mass times mols per each elementin a star core should give a near accurate mass for the star. Basically,because you cannot put it on a scale to weigh I decided to use a simplechemistry method to determine the weight. As for the sum of the limits to find time, I know it is a intregral of the change of time, frequency and mass but due to their own relationship to each other, I wrote it as a sum of limits.

Most black holes emit gamma ray radiation from their poles when they absorb a mass such as a star. 10^30 is my limit since it is the highest know gamma ray frequency so far, but in my theory I did state that it could be higher. The frequency just approaches the highest frequency. I was thinking through the use of supercomputer, most of this isnt capable of being done yet there isn't an advanced enough microscope to find its volume. The mass can be determined by the mass of the star's core and the material it absorbs. Once again this will have to be ranged until we have advanced enough technology to truely find that. Yes, it is a new form of degenerate matter, that is the densest matter in the whole universe which would allow black hole cores to have exetremely small volumes and high masses.

Here is a redone version of it. The big part of this to me is that the big bang could of been the result of a failing "omega" black hole, something that is larger than any supermassive black hole. This would mean that in this failure due to what the degenerate matter of the core is, both matter and anit-matter could form. In addition, this explains why the big bang itself did not form a black hole. Theory of Time.pdf

Does not everything in the universe, exist inside the universe thus it is relative to the universe on how it acts. Two objects that exist inside a universe, can be relative to each other, but are always relative to the universe in which they exist. If they weren't then the laws of the universe would not apply to them, since they are not relative to the universe. And I am discussing this by standing up to my point of view of this. Now tell me what laws if any this theory that I orginally posted breaks, all it was is a redefination of time, into something that isn't seconds which is a human based number not a physics based value. A second is something that we used before any of this relativity was known. Now if it is replaced with something like I suggest which causes time to vary based of acceleration and mass, it is more universal since it will change. Basically m/s for velocity would not be m/s but m/decomposition of matter, in which this decomposition is based on mass and acceleration. In addition, page 1043 paragraph 4 and 5 says that following in my textbook say that the E in E=mc^2 is the energy of the mass, mass energy, or rest energy, which is the energy a mass is equal to. Thus to me this means when an object hits light speed the mass turns into that energy, in the form of a light wave, or series of light waves since matter will not decompose all at once. The total energy of a particle is E=mc^2 + Ke, where I am saying that once that particle hits light speed it produces light waves based of the energy inside it's mass. If you disagree then we will just have to agree to disagree on this then.

All objects in the universe are moving in that frame of the universe. The universe is constantly expanding out as according to hubble and everything in the universe is moving in that frame since it is in and part of the universe. Where only light is know to move at light speed in relation to the universe meaning that a mass must turn into energy in the form of a light wave, radio, gamma etc. based off its acceleration which is effected by its overall mass. Once again my basis is simple since no mass can exist at light speed in thier relationship to the universe, only light itself, that mass must transform into light. Yes the speed of light is a predefined constant velocity, represented by the symbol c, it still doesn't change the fact that is it a velocity.

I did understand but things moving in your analogy that did not take into account their own relativity to the universe, which effects when the mass turns into energy. For example, two object both moving half the speed the light exactually away from each other appear to be moving at the speed of light or close to it. But relative to the universe they are still moving at that half speed of light. Thus they do not turn into prue energy unlike an object that is moving at the speed of light relative to the universe. The book is called the Fundamentals of Physics by Jearl Walker.

Here is some other things I base what I say off of whereE is energy, m is mass, and c is the speedof lightin a vacuum. The formula is dimensionally consistentand does not depend on any specific system ofmeasurement units. The equation E = mc2 indicates thatenergy always exhibits relativistic mass inwhatever form the energy takes.[2] Mass–energy equivalence does notimply that mass may be "converted" to energy, but it allows for matterto be converted to energy. Through all such conversions, mass remainsconserved, since it is a property of matter and any type of energy. In physics,mass must be differentiated from matter. Matter, when seen as certain types ofparticles, can be created and destroyed (as in particle annihilation or creation), but the system of precursors andproducts of such reactions, as a whole, retain both the original mass andenergy, with each of these system properties remaining unchanged (conserved)throughout the process. Simplified, this means that the total amount of energy(E) before the experiment is equal to the amount of energy after theexperiment. Letting the m in E = mc2 stand for a quantityof "matter" (rather than mass) may lead to incorrect results,depending on which of several varying definitions of "matter" arechosen. The earth is not moving at the speed of light relative to the universe unlike the particle, which is moving at the speed of light relative to the universe and since matter cannot exist that the speed of light it transfers into energy. Once again something seen in the absorbation of matter into black holes.

Yea I know what am asymptote is, it is a limit a line afunction can get close to but never intersect. It becomes zero because c notonly is the velocity limit but also a time limit since going past it causestime to be negative, oddly enough a way to go back in time but since nothingcan go past this time barrier, before becoming completely energy. The Lorenzfactor only exists before c since it is an effect applied to masses not energy. Well when you call an author of a physics textbook that has 9 editions a crackpot, thats an issue in my opinoin. Basically, what I am saying is I trust my textbook more, than some person online that could be anyone. And more important what I am talking with all of this is black holes and what happens in and near them. Black holes are known to release gamma rays but no mass when they aborb a mass meaning they must be accelerating said mass until it breaks down into a light wave, in this case a gamma ray.

The physics book is a textbook. I am really starting to doubt you know physics, well at least this topic of physics, if you didn't know that derivation of Einstein's theory. And when I read that book it says that is what occurs when a mass hits the speed of light it turns into energy because no mass can move at the speed of light.

It does sound possible, black holes are know to "eat" each other and become bigger. This process happens when galaxies hit each other, thus forming a larger galaxy out of the two smaller ones. Furthermore, the tidal effects, the arms of the spiral galaxies, are know to be caused by the supermass black hole core.

I would have to disagree all objects that have a velocity must be accelerated up to that point, where once a mass reaches C it is transferred into pure energy. Thus in that accelerating right before the complete transfer of all mass to energy the particle still is under the fundamental effects of physics while retaining relativity based qualities that can be seenin this function since it produces different times based on different objects.Once again this is mainly for black holes. The simple thing is this equation agrees with effects seen in the universe and doesn't break any laws. The point where it exists at allows for, right before the mass become complete energy, both fundamental and relativity to exist at the sametime. Thus giving the ability to find time in terms of the decomposition of mass into energy.

I got this from a pyshics book. Based of Einstien's theory there is a point where an accelerating object mass converts to energy. Before that there exists a point where a small mass exists moving at high velocities which requires an accelerating until it breaks down into energy.

Is there not a point where mass is transforming to energy? The answer is yes and at this point acceleration must exist and occur over a time. In addition Mass–velocity relationshipIn developing special relativity, Einstein found that the kinetic energy of a moving body is with the velocity, the rest mass, and γ the Lorentz factor. He included the second term on the right to make sure that for small velocities, the energy would be the same as in classical mechanics: Without this second term, there would be an additional contribution in the energy when the particle is not moving. Einstein found that the total momentum of a moving particle is: and it is this quantity which is conserved in collisions. The ratio of the momentum to the velocity is the relativistic mass, m. And the relativistic mass and the relativistic kinetic energy are related by the formula: Einstein wanted to omit the unnatural second term on the right-hand side, whose only purpose is to make the energy at rest zero, and to declare that the particle has a total energy which obeys: This allows me to do what I did. Since, time is the summation of change of those variables as they reach their limits. (Something I didn't show becuase I didn't know the sign for it.) Really, all I did is reverse what Einstein did to find the results in terms of time not energy. The basic thing is it works and given the E=hf exchange I did could be used to find the accelerations occurring in black holes. Its main use is that it is easier to use and understand than other existing equations and can be used on the fundamental side of physics in a relativistic way. This also can be used to find the frequency of gamma radition of black holes based on the accelerations of masses entering them.

It is basically something that I used as a division line to show that there is a point where a mass accelerates until it completely becomes kinetic energy and then completely energy.