Why Do Massive Bodies Have Half The Mass?
..
The "ghost" theory, outlined last year (2006) uses the motif of 0 mass particles to explain gravity by the downward flow of the field at 32 ft above Earth's surface or similar realms, and explains the space time of General Relativity as a flow of field made of these particles. If black holes were imploding in the ghost particles, calculations say they would have twice the mass found, and this is supposed to be disproof of ghost particles (Here's a brief summary on my main physics synopses page like Boat in Water Theory q.v. I use in support of the Ghost Particle Theory, Speed of Gravity, ect.). I believe this "theory of ghosts" explains centrifugal force and gravity well. Any ghost causology even with no usual matter of the more usual sort falling in the black hole in my physics would be like the sun or earth. The ghost particles flowing in would cause the gravity by their inward flow, this would then heat up the particles by pressure. So the heat causes loss of mass by the outward radiation of light even with ghost particles flowing in, this is conservation of energy the same as conservation of quantity of motion. Energy conservation is the most well proven theory in the history of science, so Nobel Prize winner T'hooft and others like myself believe the mass energy flowing into a black hole is not lost. Many large sources of the jets of much higher mass than a stellar sized black hole are of much power. If a black hole would be spinning (most are thought to be) it would form poles like the jets seen of high power masses that would overpower the implosion beyond a certain point in the history of the massive black hole. If the ghost particles are not seen directly there may be jets made of the same sort of low energy mass, and this would be a motif to save energy conservation for lower power masses like of this sort, with about as much inflow as out and so on, or more mass outward. This mass connection by the jets at faster than light to overpower the implosion would explain the observed mass of the black holes, the outflow would reduce the mass. So they may lose mass over time like the sun or the earth by pressure and heating. While large black holes, except for the source of the cosmic expansion, in my theories would tend to lose mass, like entropy tends to be a reduction in energy, this would be just a tendancy. To have been formed, more than mass reduction would be involved, so mass of usual sort could fall in, and it's continually falling in the jets of massive radio sources, BL Lacs, and so on.. If black holes were able to gain mass always from the field, mass of all black holes would have been increasing for all the history of the universe. Energy is neither created or destroyed, so in my cosmology the cosmos has existed for infinite time. Black holes if with infinite time to attract would be of infinite mass and we would be engulfed, obviously reductio ad absurdam. So if not, the mass is not lost in black holes or other more massive sources. This is evidence of my belief about absolutes is that "actual" infinities at any one age or hour of the cosmos of such as particles of infinite mass, singularities, an infinite big bang in cosmology, and so on (other than an infinity of time because of energy being neither created or destroyed which is never "actually" infinite at any one time) are of no value to math or science (except like I'm using infinity here as a disproof of other science).

All the cosmos in my physics is like the earth's mass, it has and will exist forever so it's infinite in time, but finite in mass and volume, at any one of these infinite moments of time. Softwear of most worth of the web in Feb. is when I go on with my rug, and can be unofficially awake, I'm officially awake in March.
.
If mass of black holes of the more usual sort falls in they may win more mass than they lose, with mass more dense. But the field of the particles flowing in like the earth with pressure losing more heat than the gravity pressure like the radiance of stars seems to predict a weight reduction, even with the particles of the field flowing in, and even with my theory of faster than light speed of inward flow of the field (the outer flow is also faster than light to conserve power) like the jets of the higher power of more massive orbs. If there were no jets due to reduced spin for some of them they would have no outward escape for the field pressure and energy wouldn't be conserved, so this predicts that some black holes would build up from the inflow of the field, then with spin added, the jets would ignite. Stars in creation of the superdense orbs having spins that would cancel giving the black hole no spin would be uncommon. So while black holes increasing mass with no outflow of usual mass for part of their lifetime may be uncommon, they are a definite possibility of this cause.

A large enough mass may squeeze its own mass out by the jets so much it would lose more mass than it would win, and it would have no infinite mass. This would at least be the way the mass at the center of the cosmic expansion that would power the jet in the Double Vortex Generator Cosmology.. would be that explains the expansion from the center of the cosmos observed. The Vortex replaces the spherical expansion that only goes out with both an inflow and outflow (of the cosmic disk and jets) just like a usual high power source (like a BL-Lac, a strong radio source, and so on) if the central black hole got no more robust, over infinite time, with energy conservation maintained by the stability of the Vortex Generator.
.
So a black hole may squeeze its own mass out by the jets so much it would lose more mass than it would win except at the cosmic power level where the inflow and out of all total mass and energy would be equal, the cosmic jets and mass would always stay the same size, all smaller masses would be able to change. Smaller masses like the sun or earth would lose more power over time like the sun is losing mass by fusion, just by the ghost particles, but more dense mass like usual mass falling to the earth allow increase of mass also, the cosmic mass would be the only mass that would never change in overall energy. In general you can change the mass of any mass by just adding more on or reduction except the cosmos, and black holes would be the same. That the black holes add on mass only at half the rate of the ghost particle theory seems too much coincidence and I think there may be something deeper about it like a connection between electromagnetism and gravity, this is what Chin and others believe (Chin discovered faster than light wave motion a few years ago with off the shelf lab experiments, sort of like Einstein with his shelftop experiments before he was famous about the speed of light). I have a ready explanation of this on my physics synopes page (see link above).

..