General Relativity Theory Options

I do not know a huge amount on this subject but i thought deeply on how to blow out general relativity
and this is what i came up with, but please no harsh comments if i am wrong.

E=MCsquared right which means that if you move something near the speed of light its mass will fill up and will not be able to take anymore energy.
so say you take the fabric of spacetime and put it in a blender and spacetime moves really really near the speed of light, then everything in the universe could not take more energy so it could not have anymore motion, Time ( comparisons in motion) would not exist anymore. Now scientists at the time said that gravity moves faster than the speed of light because it is instantaneous, so einstein said that gravity was different from other forces because it is the outcome from a curve in spacetime, but time would not exist so gravity and light would be on the same level and could be judged justifiedly and gravity is instantaneous. Does that blow it up. Does that make sense, i would love to hear peoples views and facts which could blow my theory
(IMG:http://www.mallorcaweb.com/portal/img/noticies/4516/einstein-2.jpg)

First off, I want to say that mass, like energy, cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. For something to reach infinite mass within a definite shape and size would yeild infinite density. Any object with infinite density is known as a black hole. So a baseball at the speed of light becomes a black hole??! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/compress.gif)

Speaking of, I think I poked a "hole" in relativity theory right there (I could be wrong). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shoot2.gif)

In addition, what sense is there for any real change in mass or density to occur with speed? I take Tesla's stance on atomic thory and all applicable theorums and say it's a bunch of HooHaa. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/tickedoff.gif) If there is any requirement of infinite, it would be an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any given object by the speed of light. It takes a certain amount of energy to raise something in velocity to a certain degree. The speed of light is considered to be the fastest. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wheelchair.gif)

It makes more sense for something to require infinite energy to accelerate to the maximum conceivable physical speed in the universe, rather than to say that one reaches an apex which is impossible to aquire in an environment with little to no friction.

Only 2.7% of any given section of the universe is matter. The rest is waveform energy. Who are the pundits at the top to act like they know everything about the universe, when they are focusing on a 2.7% section that 90% of their theorums apply to?

This post has been edited by Xenomancer: Dec 2 2007, 03:41 PM