Mass can not slow time.

[sm0ky2]

the theoretical "black hole" has yet to be confirmed. thre is evidence to suggest that the blackness found in the center of most galactic bodies is not a hypermassive "black hole" at all, but rather one of the few places where a 'true vacuum' exists.

spread throughout nearly all of space is tiny particles of matter, spacedust, ect., thus even in the vacuum of space, there is not a 'true vacuum'.  evidence suggests that in the center of a galaxy, like for example our spiraling milky-way, the gravitational forces are so great in the outward direction, that it creates a 'true vacuum'. it is this vacuum that holds the galaxy together, and that the lack of matter (space dust, ect) presents nothing for light to reflect off of, and thus it ceases to be "light" as we know it.

both theories represent the same observed phenomena of attraction, but in the latter, there is no "singularity", simply a pure void, a nothingness.

yet, in both instances, when approaching the event horizon (if we still want to call it that) there is no evidence for a distortion of time.
the estimated "life time" of a star of a given mass, appears to be the same in the center of a galaxy as it does at the outer edges.

if mass affacted "time" in such a manner, we would expect the life time of a star in the center of the galaxy to be either much longer or much shorter in the face of great mass, or a lack thereof.

Let's take the simple example of atomic decay
an atom here on earth will decay at the same rate as an atom in space, far from the mass of the earth.
space-based nuclear generators operate on this principal.

thus - mass does not appear to slow time.

[onthecuttingedge2005]

the theoretical "black hole" has yet to be confirmed.

if Blackholes are theoretical then how come you think you know so much about Blackholes? there are some very wickedly smart people studying them night and day, what about you?

thre is evidence to suggest that the blackness found in the center of most galactic bodies is not a hypermassive "black hole" at all, but rather one of the few places where a 'true vacuum' exists.

I would like to see this evidence and the literature behind these statements.

spread throughout nearly all of space is tiny particles of matter, spacedust, ect.

you seem to be stuck on classical atomics, space is also filled with Quantum particles and waves as well as classical Atomic particles.

, thus even in the vacuum of space, there is not a 'true vacuum'.

you are contradicting yourself here.

evidence suggests that in the center of a galaxy, like for example our spiraling milky-way, the gravitational forces are so great in the outward direction, that it creates a 'true vacuum'.

you just contradicted yourself again.
In quantum mechanics, the vacuum is defined as the state (i.e. solution to the equations of the theory) with the lowest energy.
Even if a region of space contains no particles, the cosmic microwave background fills the entire universe with black body radiation.

it is this vacuum that holds the galaxy together, and that the lack of matter (space dust, ect) presents nothing for light to reflect off of, and thus it ceases to be "light" as we know it.

Are you making this stuff up as you go along? a Galaxy is held together by its fundamental forces, it expands because it still has excess kinetic energy to expand.

both theories represent the same observed phenomena of attraction, but in the latter, there is no "singularity", simply a pure void, a nothingness.

which two theories are you pulling this nonsense from?

yet, in both instances, when approaching the event horizon (if we still want to call it that) there is no evidence for a distortion of time.

you sound like you are saying that Blackholes exist here, another contradiction. time doesn't get distorted outside or while approaching an event horizon, it is still relative, it is theorized that inside of the event horizon is where time gets warped and at the Blackholes core surface time is extremely warped maybe even down to the Quantum level.

the estimated "life time" of a star of a given mass, appears to be the same in the center of a galaxy as it does at the outer edges.

The Star 183027 is the oldest star so far found, it is lighter than our sun, the reason 183027 lived so long is because it has always had a lack of other elements, 183027 always contained more Hydrogen to Helium, 183027 is theorized to of been born about 1 billion years after the big bang which makes it about 13 billion years old.

if mass affacted "time" in such a manner, we would expect the life time of a star in the center of the galaxy to be either much longer or much shorter in the face of great mass, or a lack thereof.

it really does sound like you are guessing here, relativity should already tell you that time does slow down at the center of Gravity and speeds up the further you get from the center of Gravity.

Let's take the simple example of atomic decay
an atom here on earth will decay at the same rate as an atom in space, far from the mass of the earth.
space-based nuclear generators operate on this principal.

the decay rate charted as half life of a radio isotope is an approximation only, all decay rates of all Isotopes decay with a 'random' decay, you can not predict when an isotope will spontaneously decay. if you are talking about Beta Reactors then all they do is collect Beta emissions on charge plates. If you are talking about nuclear thermopiles that is inherent to converting heat through thermoelectric effects, which nuclear generators are you referring?

you can not use a radioactive isotope as a clock because the decay rates are random, you have to use stable isotopes for clocks. radioactive isotopes are used in what's called true random number generators because their decay is random and not predictable.

thus - mass does not appear to slow time.

nonsense.

[brian334]

This question is for anyone that wants to try to answer it.
What is the mass of time?
I say the mass of time is 0. I also say something with 0 mass cannot  change anything.

[the_big_m_in_ok]

quote]
I say the mass of time is 0. I also say something with 0 mass cannot  change anything.

@all
As a concept, I do agree in principal.
Time is a dimension that one perceives as going in one direction(forward, ordinarily) as long as one lives, yes?
A dimension cannot have mass as such.  An object inside three dimensions experiences time dilation heading toward lightspeed, right?  It has its apparent time slowed, relatively, not the independent space around it as it moves.

Artificial time travel is something else entirely.

--Lee

[Tito L. Oracion]

Hi everyone good day ! 

to cut it short, it is the WEIGHT that slows time ok