Strange

Are you the "element 541" guy? You still have no evidence to support your "thoughts" so they are still just beliefs. Your ideas also contradict what is known about fusion reactions in stars and the behaviour of black holes. For example, what you describe in stage 2 of fusion does not continue without limit. Fusion does not create heavier and heavier atoms. I am fairly confident that it does not produce anything above iron. And then the star goes supernova. And... This doesn't happen. Sadly, in my experience, this means that you will refuse to accept any criticism of your theory. Please feel free to prove me wrong: I would be delighted. But you didn't address any of the comments in your other thread, so I don't hold out much hope ...

Well, if all objective measurements tell you the same thing, and you want to call that an "illusion" then I suppose that is up to you. But illusion usually refers to something which has no objective reality. Relativity describes the way the world really works. We know this because we have to use it to make things that wokr in the real world (e.g. your computer). You are welcome to your opinion. But reality seems to disagree. The last part of that is certainly true. The first part less so: if there is only One True Value for things, what is your present One True Velocity? (It had better not be zero, I won't believe you.)

At this level of accuracy (2 significant digits) the mass of the electron is 0. Also, the mass of a hydrogen is not just the sum of the proton and electron mass. You need to take into account the binding energy Mass of proton = 1.67262178 × 10-27 kg Mass of hydrogen atom = 1.6735326 × 10-27 kg Beyond that, I don't know what you are trying to ask.

Not really. It is not as if the outside observer sees the matter stop at the surface of the black hole. For the outside observer, the infalling matter disappears from view in a finite amount of time (after all, there are a a finite number of photons emitted by the infalling matter before it passes the event horizon, so we can't see it stuck there forever). Also, the infalling matter will increase the mass and therefore the radius of the black hole. So the location at which we see the matter is soon within the event horizon.

Not the word I would use. There is no force acting on the moon to make it escape. If you were to attach a great big engine to it ...

I'm sure this has been explained to you before: in the frame of reference of the cabin (or of the electron) there is no increase in mass. It is called the theory of relativity for a reason. This is one reason why some people think the concept of relativistic mass should be dropped; it confuses people in this way. It depends in what frame of reference you measure the speed, energy and frequency. (These are all observer dependent.)

You're welcome. Glad to be of assistance.

You may mean something different by "preferred frame of reference" - this normally means that there is just ONE such frame (which, for example, defines an absolute reference for velocity, etc). However, by your definition, there are an infinite number of preferred frames of reference. Therefore, none of them are preferred. Therefore there is no preferred frame. QED

There is a "preferred" mass; the rest or proper mass. But there is not a single frame of reference where this is measured. You are making a leap from "proper mass" to special or preferred frame of reference. That is a complete non sequitur.

Quite. It is the "everything" that baffles me.

Does it? I see this stated quite frequently. I wonder where the idea comes from ...

Except there is evidence for dark matter. And a number of hypotheses which provide testable predictions.

As far as we know, matter and antimatter behave in exactly the same way with regards to gravity. There is no reason to think otherwise. However, scientists always want to test things and so the CERN ALPHA experiment is trying to create enough antimatter to test the effect of gravity. http://alpha.web.cern.ch/node/248

Not if they are just made up, with no evidence supporting them, and contradicted by all known evidence. There is no reason at all to consider this idea. It is just wrong. Unless you can provide some evidence ...

You are free to believe that. However, as you have no evidence to support it, it is not science. Our current best models do not allow for the existence of any form of matter in the centre of a black hole. As things like neutron stars, which contain the densest form of matter we know of, do not contain "element 534", I see no reason to assume that a black hole would.

Because they have integer spin and obey Bose-Einstein statistics. Like the other types of boson (W, Z, Higgs, gluon, etc.) Yes. You often make very confused or confusing statements. It is hard to tell if this is because you do not understand the words you use, or are just being very loose with the meaning.

None of which says there is a preferred frame of reference.

You are concluding that there is one preferred frame from the fact there are an infinite number of frames of reference?

If you have 100 objects moving at different velocities, then they will each have a different frame of reference. The rest mass of each object will be the mass measured in its own frame of reference. So, clearly, no preferred frame.

Of course. And all observers will agree what the rest mass of an object is. That is why it is also called invariant mass.

Fair comment. But there is a "reality" that is common to all observers; as noted at the beginning of the thread, causality is always preserved, for example. Similarly, in something like Bell's spaceship paradox, you can't have one frame of reference where the rope breaks and another where it doesn't.

Of course not: 6 multiplied by 2 is 12; 6 divided by 2 is 3. Yes it is true: frequency is the number of cycles in one second; period is how long (in seconds) the cycle is. (This has nothing to do with your statement that multiplication and division are the same.) From that page: So, yes, obviously light can pass through some matter (air, water, glass, for example) but bosons do not pass through all matter.

It is the same reality; just perceived in different ways by different observers. A bit like perspective (but more so). I assume you are not denying that relativity works?

I'm afraid I'm not quite sure what that means (and therefore whether it is correct or not). But you may be close; there is no universal definition of "now" (or the present), it depends on the observer. Therefore, the relative timing of events depends on the observer, as well. The page explains (as does the link in post #2) how two different observers will observe events as simultaneous or not, depending on their relative motion: Some people prefer videos to text, so maybe this will help: (I haven't watched the whole thing, but it looks reasonable.)

No, it is description of how two people may disagree about whether or not two events are simultaneous (or, more generally, which occured first). See post #2.