I believe Einstein made 2 fatal errors in assuming that nothing can travel faster than light and that light is without mass. It is these errors that necessitate the need for a fourth dimension, ie: the theory of relativity. I will now attempt to show that there is no need for any such theory, that Newtonian physics still suffice and that this is actually pretty simple once you accept that matter can travel faster than light and that light is not without mass.
If I understand Einstein correctly;
1. When ever matter is accelerated infinitely close to light speed, it becomes infinitely massive and therefore can not obtain light speed. This strikes me as utter nonsense.
2. Space is not a 3 dimensional place. Time becomes a variable just like width. Some astrophysicists are now coming up with theories that contain additional dimensions. I believe this is to stay within the accepted principles of Einstein. This also strikes me as nonsense.
3. Einstein did not ascribe mass to light. This too, I believe incorrect.
4. I should clarify that I've never interpreted Einstein's theories for myself. I'm not even sure I could. I am very grateful to scientists like Stephen Hawkings for "dumbing" it down for me, and hope that my understanding of their interpretations is sufficiently correct for my thesis.
Now, on to my so-called proof.
Before we can even address this issue, we must first accept that black holes do indeed exist. I believe this has been proven many times, though indirectly, by objects like this: http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/news/GRS1915n105.html
It is widely accepted that our Sun will eventually become a white dwarf and that if it was 5 to 15 times larger in would eventually become a neutron star. A black hole is simply the next step in this equation. If you do not understand and accept this, then nothing else I say is going to make much sense.
The object at GRS1915n105 is one of many examples of a micro quasar or binary system. It has been measured ejecting matter at a significant fraction of light speed. I'm not convinced that the original, super luminous, measurement was inaccurate This micro-quasar, by definition is far from being the most powerful quasar in the universe. As the reams of astrophysical data currently being processed become available, I'm confident that measured super luminous speeds are going to be proven.
Einstein predicted that a black hole would be sufficiently dense to not allow even light to escape its event horizon. This I agree with completely. Where I dissent, is the reason for this phenomenon. I do ascribe mass to light. I have a pet theory that light is unique in that it only exists at a certain infinitely narrow speed range, much like water is only liquid in a certain temperature range. If slowed down, or speeded up; it becomes something else entirely. For the purpose of my thesis, I do not find it necessary to know what it becomes.
My theory is that an event horizon is the threshold where all matter is accelerated beyond the speed of light, and therefore can not be seen. By accepting black holes at all; you are accepting that matter can be infinitely dense; and therefore can have an infinitely powerful gravitational pull. In this model you will see that the radius of an event horizon is not static, but rather it is variable depending upon the mass of the object being accelerated. I believe at some point in the future this may be proven by measuring when objects of different masses appear to disappear when traveling towards a black hole. I further theorize that beyond the event horizon; matter continues to accelerate to infinitely super luminous speeds a microsecond before impact (perhaps even c squared in the case of a super massive black hole).
I don't mean to give the impression that I think Einstein was wrong about everything. I, too, think he was easily the greatest thinker of his time. However, his calculations pre-date many of our best detection techniques; forcing him to make assumptions that in some cases can be replaced with opposing facts today.
I believe the biggest of these errors is his assumption that light is without mass. If light were without mass; then of course you would have come up with something (time as a variable dimension for instance) to explain light's inability to escape a black hole. Einstein's assumption that light was without mass came at a time when science was still getting used to the idea that light wasn't instantaneous. Once you've accepted that light is not without mass; than you can assume that gravity can affect it without considering time a variable dimension. If a black hole can be infinitely dense, than you have to admit that its gravitational fields can be powerful enough to trap light. Hence, you've eliminated the need to consider time a variable dimension. If modern science still considered light to be without mass; than Einstein's theory would still be relevant (pun intended). Since we can now assume light has mass, it is not necessary. If I can move a lever with my hand; I don't reach for additional tools to assist me.
In the binary system located at: http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/news/GRS1915n105.html
we've seen matter other than light travel at, at least, near light speed. That system is relatively small (micro-quasar) compared to other known systems. When you consider that binary systems can be 1 million times (pick your own #) more powerful, how can you not assume they could attract/eject matter at much higher velocities? Would you consider it possible for a very massive black hole to orbit a super massive black hole prior to being devoured? If so; it could make that micro-quasar above look like the earth and the moon by comparison.
After the text body on that page "John A. Biretta of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore cautions that the researchers haven't pinned down the distance to the object ejecting the gas, thought to be a neutron star or black hole that steals matter from a less-dense companion. If this binary star lies much closer to the Earth than the 40,000 light years they estimate, the blobs would still be cruising, but not at superluminal speeds', he says." Funny; he doesn't point out that if this binary system lies much further from earth, than we've already witnessed superluminal speeds! I think these guys get a mental block at the thought of one of their laws being bunk!
In the equation e=mc2; light speed is multiplied by light speed to = Energy. I am merely suggesting infinity doesn't begin at c
c squared, perhaps, but we have no need for such an equation at this time. Considering we will likely never get to peer inside the event horizon of a black hole, I doubt we ever will.
Conclusion: Once you accept that matter can travel faster than light there is no need for a fourth dimension. Newtonian physics will suffice just fine. I find this explanation far simpler and therefore have to assume it is correct.
As you can tell by my chosen name on A2K, I am a big believer in Occom's razor.
For the record, I am obviously not a professional physicist, just an enthusiast who is anxious to understand why I am wrong. If indeed, I am. Can anyone help?