An object with an enormous ‘mass of matter' is referred to as a black hole. A ‘relative blackhole' would be an object accelerated to enormous velocity, which then experiences an increase in inertia equivalent to an increase in relative mass. An example of this sort of thing would be the small subatomic particle in the large Hadron Collider which achieves the relative mass of a Greyhound bus by being accelerated close to light speeds. That this is an increase ‘relative mass' is demonstrated by the increased inertia which requires that each new particle collider ramp up the energy level to higher and higher levels to push that Greyhound bus just a little bit closer to the speed of light, for as relative mass increases the object becomes just that much harder to push.

Therefore the small subatomic particle in the large Hadron Collider is just one example of a ‘relative blackhole' and this might explain the public hysteria over the operation of that Collider, and the assumption that the relative blackhole will ‘swallow the earth'. Now even if we assume that relative mass is equivalent to absolute mass, and that therefore the particle has increased gravity, which seems very, very unlikely to be true, I have never heard of a Greyhound bus sucking in the whole earth because of its enormous gravity. Even more troublesome would be a Greyhound bus travelling at light speeds and then blowing up after colliding with the first atom it encountered, thus being unable to eat atoms and grow and grow, until finally it ate the whole earth, because it is hard for a Greyhound bus to eat and grow and consume all earth after having suffered such a catastrophic field collapse. Here we are assuming that ‘relative mass' is equivalent to ‘absolute mass' in that both increase the ‘gravity', which is very unlikely to be true.

The best example we can find of an object out in space that seems to fit the description of a ‘Relative Black Hole' is the Crab Nebula. The Crab Nebula does not fit the description of a supernova. When a supernova takes place scientists go into emergency mode and attempt to get their telescopes wheeled around at top speed, before the whole event is over. Sometimes they just catch the tail end of that explosion. There just wasn't time. The Crab Nebula event lasted three years. We see here evidence for time dilation, clear signs of blackhole-like activity, for time slows to a crawl and becomes very dilated in blackhole territory.





In this image you can see evidence for the collapsed jets associated with a black hole. The jets were produced by the object in the past and are now dissipating because of the force of some kind of space wind. That such jets could remain in space is evidence that an explosion such as that of a supernova could not have produced this nebula, for then we would not expect such jets to survive to slowly dissipate over the course of a few centuries. The material around the object remains in the general vicinity and has not been blown off into far distant space, and there is clear evidence that the material is being pulled by equatorial gravitational field effects. There is also this curious ‘forbidden zone' around the core of the neutron pulsar at the center of the object, where, in spite of gravity, nothing is allowed to enter into that space because, for some reason, the space is already occupied. Apparently it is occupied by the neutrons in the pulsar, for, although the physical location of those neutrons is clearly located in the central mass, nevertheless those neutrons feel the need for more room.





The red zone in the image above is an anomalous cloud of nitrogen gas which for some reason was ejected from the object with a greater velocity, and still seems to retain its cohesion. If the object had a nitrogen atmosphere, and if the object was a relative blackhole undergoing field collapse, then we would expect the results of relativistic time dilation to collapse in the atmosphere first, resulting in an increased relative acceleration of a nitrogen atmosphere.

What we appear to have here is a sudden field collapse. We can imagine that the object that formed the Crab Nebula was rocketing through space at relativistic velocities, and then encountered a space rock. This rock would have become like a particle in a particle accelerator as it moved through the field of the relative blackhole. It would have impacted with the surface violently at relativistic velocity. The result would have been a weird time dilated explosion on the surface, followed by a field collapse as the momentum energy stored in the objects field could no longer be held in a state of entropy in the field and began to escape out into space. Most of the light seen for three years would have been this escaping field energy. As the field energy escaped, the time dilation would have decreased. The object would have suddenly stopped dead in space, having lost its momentum field energy, and thus its conserved momentum. Different parts of the object would have lost momentum at different rates at different times. First the nitrogen atmosphere went, but the field collapse was not complete and so it maintained extra momentum for a longer period of time, and its deceleration time was lengthened as the time distorted field collapse occurred. After three years time, the time dilated braking effect was concluded, and the entire object managed to come to a complete halt in space, while, of course being all torn apart while doing so, with each part coming apart from the others at different rates of deceleration, producing this interesting object that we see today, the product of collision in space between a speeding relative blackhole and some space pebble or asteroid.

It is also interesting to ponder what role those neutrons could play in generating that repulsive force, ‘the weak force', described in Quantum physics, because they really do seem to need a lot of extra space and consequently can be seen generating some kind of repulsion. It could also be true that all subatomic particles need their space, not just neutrons. Another possibility is that while all subatomic particles need their space, some need a little more than others. A neutron, having a neutral ‘charge', has just the right amount of space, and therefore does not feel the need to be very attractive or very repulsive by developing any kind of ‘charge'. Now let's assume that a subatomic particle had a positive charge or a negative charge. This would be a description of the way they occupy space. I usually think of ‘positive' as being to much, and negative as being to little, and so a negatively charged particle, like an electron, does not have enough energy for its space, having to much space, and therefore can act like a sponge, while a positively charged object, like some quark, already has more energy for its space than it requires and would therefore generate a stronger repulsive force, while at the same time seeming quite attractive to a negatively charged quark, which really could use some of that extra energy but for some reason cannot get access to it, for that positively charged quark continues to hang onto that energy even though it already has more than enough, and is feeling a little cramped in its space as a result. Only a neutron feels perfectly happy with its space/energy ratio, which does not mean that neutron won't be found occupying a bunch of extra space around itself, since apparently that extra space, the field around the neutron, is part of its space as well, which makes sense, because if subatomic particles did not possess this momentum field (no doubt a warped space field) it would be next to impossible to get them moving in a particle accelerator.