If three bodies each move at constant angular speed, each following a trajectory given by r=R.(1+K.cos(A+n.120)) and each of these bodies rotates about its own axis in a manner that balances out the torque variation due to radial change, what angular velocity must the system rotate at before a gravitational force starts to be resolved at the system reference point in the direction A=0?

If, as I understand it, relativity prescribes that being inside a uniformly accelerating object is indistuingishable from a gravitational field, yet a gravitational field follows the inverse square law, does that mean the further you are from the accelerating end of the object, the weaker the accelration you would feel, following the inverse square law?

Me and my twin develop a rocket that can fly through space near the speed of light... He gets in and takes off and his rocket approaches C. From my perspective time slows down for him, he ages slower than me on earth, and when he returns more time has passed for me.  But from his perspective earth has taken off at near C away from him, so shouldn't he see time slow for me.  And from his perspective, when earth returns shouldn't he have aged more rapidly than me? If its all relative, what is the mechanism that decides who ages, when both brothers see the exact same scenario from different points of view?

If you attach a straight pole to an axle so that it revolves at a right angle to the axle (like spokes on a bicycle wheel) and spin it, the outside of the pole will move faster than the inside. The longer the pole, the faster the movement around the circumference.

If I built a pole that was long enough, it would get to a point where the end -if spun - should reach the speed of light, or even exceed the speed of light. However, I know that nothing can travel as fast as the speed of light. What would happen to the pole?

If you define an arbitrary plane in free space, then the mass, momentum, and energy of virtual particles crossing the surface will balance (statistically over a given time period). If this plane is parallel to and very close to an event horizon, then an imbalance occurs as some of the virtual particles are lost to the event horizon, making re-combination impossible and thus creating a surplus. The net surplus at the other side of the surface in terms of the mass, momentum and energy of the orphaned particles is then balanced by the mass, momentum and energy of the particles that strayed far enough from the original plane to cross the nearby event horizon. This implies that if an event horizon occurs, it will leak energy (mass and momentum from orphaned virtual particles) into the "real particle" universe.

My problem is that this model leaks from the "vacuum energy", and creates Hawking Radiation in equal, statistically interchangeable, forms on both sides of the gap between the arbitrary plane, and the event horizon. Everything you loose on one side, you have therefore gained, as an orphan, on the other. You get opposite charge, but still the same individual mass and overall momentum. So the total vacuum energy erodes (very slowly) but the black hole expands (also very slowly).

Even if you invoke negative energy particles, they are either repelled by the gravitational field (making things much worse) or at best they cancel the in-falling Hawking Radiation, and produce some very strange external emissions, but no net loss of mass from the black hole. I can’t create a bias, as it implies a bias in free space. Besides, I can’t tell in advance which virtual pairs will become separated, or which individuals orphaned, so there is no biasing mechanism available.

If this was the case then black holes would remain stable. Can someone please explain what is missing from this model? How does it differ from the accepted model of Hawking Radiation and the decay of Black Holes?

Mass is a characteristic of matter and I remember being told, sneeringly, "The word is mass, boy, not matter" when being shown Einstein's E=MC².

I was also told that matter and energy were the same thing and that it was possible to destroy matter and release energy.  Fine, but I see no reason to assume that mass, a characteristic of matter, should vanish when matter is converted. To be sure, it would be a little tricky to measure, but if the energy released did have the same mass as the matter which was converted, it would explain a few anomalies, including 'dark matter'.

Sounds implausible at first doesn't it? Here is how it might theoretically be possible. Can you prove me wrong?

Stephen Hawkings agrees it is theoreticaly possible to travel into the future by accelerating a person or object to near the speed of light. Travelling to the past however does not seem possible so that person would be permanently in the future. They would also be unable to communicate with us using current technology snce that would involve sending something into the pas which is theoretically implausible.

Here is where spooky physics might help us. When two particles are entangled and the properties of one changes the properties of the second particle change identically and instantaneously even if the particles are spatially separated. Experiments have already shown this to be true. Assume someone were to invent a pair of linked quantum channel devices. Now send one of the devices into the future just like Staphen Hawkings suggests. If the particles remain entangled would be then be able to have two way communications with someone from the future?

How long does it take for a black hole to fully form? 

If time appears to "stand still" at the centre of a black hole (from an outsiders point of view), does this mean that it takes forever for a singularity to form (as far as the rest of the universe is concerned)?

Or does the horizon make this problem go away?

And how can your arm remain attached to your body, even though you've just moved it in time!? Wouldn't it disappear into the future or something?

An electron is both a particle and a wave, and we cannot define exactly where a subatomic particle/wave is because it is spread out across time and space - we can only define it through probabilities. Wouldn't there need to be infinite precision and no uncertainty in nature for nature to be deterministic? Considering that infinite precision and certainty don't appear to exist - because experiments show randomness and uncertainty exists at the heart of nature, then would it be correct to assume that both atomic and subatomic particles/waves do not always interact with one another with infinite precision and if so then is it correct to conclude that nature cannot be deterministic - i.e. by having exact knowledge of the starting conditions of the universe and infinite computing power it would still be impossible to calculate exactly how the universe would evolve?