control

Nothing is infinite. This is a multiversal rule with no exceptions. (you may start saying void is infinite, but void = nothing so the rule is still true) Density of space would mean something is in the way even if you are outside the shockwave of light from the first bit of the big bang. However, that is the limit of the universe's space capacity (which is expanding at the speed of light) and outside it there is no dust and gas to slow you down and so no speed limit. The speed of light is only special inside because if any matter collided with other matter at the speed of light it would get crushed to a singularity (but would have no effect as its gravitational field strength would not change).

The light emitted by the object getting sucked in would never escape the event horizon and enter anyone's eyes. If time is constant, an outside observer would see the object falling into the black hole get fainter and slower at the same time, and at the event horizon the object would appear to disappear, yet for the object it would just fall into the black hole and get crushed and there would be no time distortion. This is what I think would really happen, and seems like what you think would happen too. If time stops at the speed of light, then if you were a photon, the universe would take zero time to pass by. That must be why photons don't change, because it would be like trying to change something by moving at infinite speed in a world of constant time (which relativity says the universe is not).

if an observer was looking at a particle going into a black hole, and he saw the particle slow down, then time from the particle's view would speed up to infinity and the black hole would be long gone. The particle wouldn't have anything happen to it as it would never get to the middle of the black hole until the black hole no longer existed. When it is said "the faster/closer to a black hole you go, time slows down", this means the closer someone went, the more real time they would skip and they would therefore appear younger if they went too close. If they went right into the middle, or if someone went to the speed of light, they would skip infinity...

I did know about not taking models literally, it's just that it shouldn't be explained with the other gravity being there. But I suppose you need the model as a stage towards understanding the real thing. Can gravity not be the attraction between everything that has a difference in charge? (if neutron stars are thought of as being like a single large particle formed by lots of mass crushing together and neutralising itself and then not being able to repel or attract further).

what linear particle accelerators? I thought they only ever made circular ones, and I also thought that the only one they tried the experiment in was the CERN circular one. (this is only because I've never heard of linear ones, not that I think they don't exist) I calculated the acceleration to be about 3.33X10^12 metres per [second squared], in a constant supply. I think if the velocity of light cannot be exceeded, then the only explanation would be that the maximum kinetic energy something can hold is limited. I wonder whether they took into account the speed of the Earth around the sun at about 30,000 metres per second, that would mean if they got it up tp 99.99% of the speed of light it would verify that an electron cannot go faster than light, but if they got it up to 99.999% then it would prove that an electron can go faster than light. I don't know how many 9s they had after the 99% but I heard someone describe it as "loads". If they didn't take the speed of the Earth into account, and measured the speed at various places and it was constant, then that would mean that they proved the speed of light can be surpassed, rather than verified that it can't.

Relativity's predictions about velocity (i.e. speed of light cannot be surpassed, higher speed slows time down) have all been attempted to be verified by moving things in CIRCLES. This is NOT velocity, this is acceleration. The prime example is the CERN particle accelerator. I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't get such an extreme acceleration in there! The velocity is changing from -99.9% to +99.9% of the speed of light in the VERY short time that it takes to travel the diameter of the particle accelerator. This acceleration is many times higher than the acceleration required to speed something up to the speed of light in one second. It does not prove that light speed cannot be surpassed.

in the 2D model of space/time, a key feature to explain gravity is that mass "warps" the fabric by existing. The fabric is thought of as a rubber sheet, and mass makes the sheet become concave, letting other masses roll down towards the larger mass. However, everyone seems to not notice that for this effect to happen there would have to be GRAVITY for the actual masses to move down and distort the sheet. This model does not explain gravity at all, and should not be used. If this model is a literal explanation of how gravity works, then relativity has it all wrong about gravity.