|Okay and how you gonna do that? I mean, without using a black hole...|
|Are we now at least in agreement on this point (that gravitational measurements outside of Earth's reference frame remain the same)?|
I talked about it in previous posts look back.
|I still think this is incorrect. Well maybe it's possible it's correct, but it is in opposition to the Theory of General Relativity.|
|At relativistic velocity you get all of the effects that come with it, including added mass,|
|Why not just make it easy. Pick a neutron star that is already at the exact threshold of becoming a black hole, its velocity relative to you 0. Now start moving.|
But just because it is more massive and dense when viewed from your frame doesn't mean it is more massive and dense in it's own reference frame.
Not in this case, as we are shedding mass in EM radiation at the same rate that acceleration is increasing mass to keep the overall mass the same.
|I'm not sure that the shedding energy as fast as you gain it will work even as a thought experiment|
|No a thought experiment it does not need to be done in real-life for example even Theory of Relativity was first only thought experiments which could not be proven until the Eclipse even then there was a row whether he was right or wrong|
|No a thought experiment it does not need to be done in real-life for example even Theory of Relativity was first only thought experiments|
|Okay, what about that it uses magnetic fields like a High Energy Proton collisions that happen in LHC. That being said it is possible without breaking any laws of physics.|
|No Event Horizons|
Now Hawking is suggesting a resolution to the paradox: Black holes do not possess event horizons after all, so they do not destroy information.
"The absence of event horizons means that there are no black holes, in the sense of regimes from which light can't escape," Hawking wrote in a paper he posted online on January 22. The paper was based on a talk he gave last August at a workshop at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California.
Instead, Hawking proposes that black holes possess "apparent horizons" that only temporarily entrap matter and energy that can eventually reemerge as radiation. This outgoing radiation possesses all the original information about what fell into the black hole, although in radically different form. Since the outgoing information is scrambled, Hawking writes, there's no practical way to reconstruct anything that fell in based on what comes out. The scrambling occurs because the apparent horizon is chaotic in nature, kind of like weather on Earth.
We can't reconstruct what an object that fell into a black hole was like based on information leaking from it, Hawking writes, just as "one can't predict the weather more than a few days in advance."
|This makes your thought experiment very difficult because we don't really even know what a Black Hole is let alone what a "pseudo-black hole" would be.|
|You answered it slighly anyway, powering|
I'd be powering it using Electricity.
|The argument here is what happens at the event horizon to entangled particles (which may effect what can happen to other particles). However, quantum entanglement is poorly understood, as are black holes. It's no surprise this is not understood. A quantized theory of gravity, to replace general relativity, is probably required to resolve this. No easy task. Still, we may take a tiny step closer to that in 2015 when the LHC energies increase. It should rule out or confirm some ideas that can affect what quantized theories of gravity are and are not allowed to have.|
|Anyway htirwin was right I should choose something more better than a blackhole. Would it however increase in gravity due to contraction as mass would be more dense.|
|I thought there would be for example a neutron star is smaller than say a city yet it weights more than the sun, its because the material to extremely dense thus iits gravity increase due to more concentration in the fabric of space.|