An object falling towards the surface of the earth accelerates by a little less than 10 meters per second. A person sitting on a chair and not in motion in the field, experiences a g force of a little less than 10 meters per second. The rate of acceleration through the warped space field and the g force experienced by an object not in motion and sitting upon the surface of the planet are equivalent.
This equivalence might lead a person to believe that ‘gravity' is a force that comes up from ‘the center of the earth' and that is why we see this equivalence. However we can also see that gravitational acceleration, which occurs without any force being involved (free fall is a zero g experience) must therefore not involve a transfer of energy into the momentum field, for when momentum is increasing, a g force is involved in the transfer process. Therefore the acceleration in the gravitational field is relative acceleration and momentum is relative. If gravitational acceleration is not relative then this implies that an object in space has less inertia than an object on the surface of the earth. Now we know that an object on the surface of the earth ‘weighs more' and that this translates into a relative increase in inertia (the energy required to push an object plus the energy required to maintain an object in position against the g force). If we consider only the inertia of the object, and factor out the relative effect of the g force, the energy required to move an object in space is equivalent to the inertia of the object on the surface of the earth. If this was not true then NASA could reduce payloads by hauling around less fuel, for objects were discovered to have lost inertia once they arrived out in space. Once again this suggests that momentum is relative and that the acceleration in a gravitational field is relative acceleration.
In the image above we represent the gravitational acceleration through the warped space field by a downward pointing arrow, and we represent quantum forces which will prevent motion in space by the upward pointing arrow. We assume that movement in space is displacement in space and that the rate of displacement increases as field density increases (the object is moved to restore entropy thus transferring the problem to the next position in the field where the process of restoring field entropy continues). We assume that the ‘g-force' that you ‘feel' is just a consequence of ‘inertia' and that this inertia is not a property that you possess but rather is impedance by the surrounding field (if you are accelerating in a space craft) or impedance by quantum forces (if you happen to be experiencing the exact same ‘g force' while sitting on a chair on earth. You are being pushed but your ability to move is impeded (inertia) and therefore you ‘feel g forces'
Now on a relative blackhole, with an enormous field density, you would accelerate at a greater rate, as indicated on the right, but because quantum processes are also relative to the position in the field which they occur, there is a corresponding increase in this inertial impedance. Therefore if you were accelerating at a rate of one hundred thousand miles an hour through the warped field of earth and earth was now a relative black hole, if you were on the surface of the earth you would find to your surprise that you were experiencing exactly one g force and that this was equivalent to the same 10 g force you would experience before the earth accelerated in space. The reason for this was that the mass of the earth had not changed, but the quantum forces had increased. This would have to be true for momentum is relative, and if the quantum forces were not also found to be relative, the result would be a loss of momentum in quantum processes.
How then do we explain the equivalence of acceleration we see on earth, where experience the same acceleration falling through the warped space field near the surface of the earth as they would do if they were experiencing that same G Force on the surface? This result is caused by the fact that the earth is in orbit. When an object is in orbit it is in orbit because it has the momentum required to maintain orbital velocity at that particular position in the field where it is located. Field momentum is relative, and so therefore the orbital velocity requires a momentum that coincidentally produces a result which corresponds to the requirements of that particular mass which is in orbit. If the earth was not in orbit, but rather was some free flying relative black hole rocketing through space then this curious orbital correspondence which produces identical acceleration in the field and on the surface of the mass would no longer hold true. If this did not hold true then an increase in relative mass would translate into an increase in mass and a corresponding increase in the gravitational attraction of an object in space. However the relative mass of an object is expressed in the universe not in the form of this warped space field container, which is dependant only upon the mass, but rather relative mass is expressed in the form of velocity through space.
One of the consequences of this analysis is that we are led to conclude that because momentum is relative, the matter based interpretation of the classic matter based black hole must be incorrect, and that because quantum forces increase as field strength increases, it is quite possible that a black hole is not some singularity but rather just a really, really big mass, surrounded by a really, really big warped space field. That this warped space field is just enormous we can see by looking at galaxies rotating around in the curved bowl of this warped space field.
We could also imagine the existence of a really weird ‘double black hole', a truly massive mass which also just happened to be a relative black hole at the same time, meaning that this was a massive black hole rocketing through space at near light speeds. There are theoretical limits placed upon the minimum wavelength of electromagnetic radiation, and so therefore we can also assume that there are limits to relative momentum, and it is then that we start to wonder what would happen in a system where those limits were exceeded. Would ‘the laws of physics break down' and the black hole collapse into a ‘singularity' or would the black hole suffer field collapse and then blow up in an enormous explosion. One such enormous explosion was detected in the late 1990s, and assuming that we take the evidence at face value and accept that, yes, it was an unimaginably huge explosion that current physics cannot explain, then we can conclude that what actually happens when a black hole eats even so much as one atom to many is field collapse and a titanic explosion.