Epic Black Hole Dispute Between Scientists

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How do you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

The link in my last post should be

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Stephen J. Crothers

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

The link in my last post should be

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Stephen J. Crothers

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

The link in my last post should be

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Stephen J. Crothers

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How do you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

The link in my last post should be

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Stephen J. Crothers

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

The link in my last post should be

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Stephen J. Crothers

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

The link in my last post should be

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Stephen J. Crothers

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How do you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

The link in my last post should be

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Stephen J. Crothers

Your lack of interest in philosophic discussions is unsurprising.

Obviously any GR theoretical description of an astrophysical object would be wrong if it does not conform to the known properties of charged plasma.

I noticed you didn’t respond to the claims made in McVittie’s paper either. This is also unsurprising.

You do a lot of talking and not a lot of proving.

How about you link me some papers that refute McVitte and Crother’s claims.

I really don’t care how arrogant you think they are. I only care if they are correct or not. As far as I can tell, they are correct.

I have read the “Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension” paper which demonstrates that the original Schwarzschild solution is an extendible metric. However this paper does not get at the root of Crothers’ arguments, which are:

1. That r strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

and

2. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes.

You repeatedly claim Crothers’ physics is decidedly “strange”, “bizarre”, “nonsense”, “ridiculous” etc.. etc.. while at the same time you yourself are propounding that space itself (which is nothing) has physical properties that allow it to bend into an infinitely dense point mass object (which by definition is in violation of SR).

Sir, I do not believe it is Crothers’ arguments which are “bizarre.”

That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is the the entire point of Crothers argument.

There is no “event horizon”

Further, don’t get mad at me. Just provide me with an existence theorem that demonstrates more than one black hole can exist.

I wrote a typo above. The correct sentence was
“That fact that it doesn’t denote an actual physical distance is NOT only an opinion by Mr. Crothers.”
In fact, the real physical distance is an integral on dr(1-rg/r)^-1/2 being rg the gravitational radius. Therefore, by claiming that r doesn’t denote an actual physical distance Mr. Crothers got there a bit late, didn’t he?

Corda had our correspondence withdrawn from the vixra site, exercising his copyright to his emails to me. He has denied me thereby right of reply to his invalid arguments. I will soon post the correspondence with Corda to my own site for all to see. He claims that I know no differential geometry. This is false. Go here for my pertinent mathematical papers:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2007/PP-09-14.PDF

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Reply-short.pdf

The latter paper is my reply to Sharples.

The proponents of the black hole make much fanfare of the quantity r that appears in the so-called “Schwarzschild solution”. They treat this issue with complicated mathematics and thereby confuse those not versed in the relevant mathematics. They routinely claim that this r is the radius, one way or another. However, this is false because it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime since it is easily proven that it strictly plays the role of the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime and so does not itself denote any distance whatsoever in “Schwarzschild” spacetime. Now one does not even need to understand the abstruse mathematics surrounding this issue to see that the black hole is invalid, making this complicated mathematical matter irrelevant, as I now show.

According to the proponents of the black hole it has an escape velocity of that of light in vacuum. This is easily verified by reference to the relevant literature. Now if that is so then light can escape since it travels at the escape velocity and so all observers can “see” the black hole. Not only that, ponderable bodies could leave the black hole but not escape since according to the Theory of Relativity no ponderable body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. So there is always a class of observers that can see these ponderable bodies leave and fall back to the black hole. On the other hand, the very same astrophysical scientists claim that neither light nor ponderable bodies can even leave the event horizon of the black hole. Thus, the black hole has no escape velocity. They also claim that there is no class of observers that can see the black hole, no matter how close the observers are to the event horizon. But escape velocity does not mean that objects cannot leave, only that they cannot escape. Thus, the astrophysical scientists maintain two contradictory claims, and so their arguments are invalid.

Now all black hole “solutions”, be they for spinning or not, pertain to a universe that contains only one mass, the black hole itself. There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which it can be even asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for multiple masses. The Principle of Superposition does not apply in General Relativity and so one cannot assert that black holes can persist in multitudes. All talk of black holes existing in multitudes, interacting with one another and other matter is due to thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where it does not apply. In Newton’s theory the Principle of Superposition applies and so one can pile up as many masses as one pleases in a given space, because space and matter are not causally linked, although the equations describing their gravitational interaction quickly become intractable. In General Relativity this is not possible because matter and spacetime are causally linked and so act upon one another. This means that each and every different configuration of matter requires its own specific solution. Furthermore, escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation: one body escapes from another body. But the black hole has no other body that can escape from it since it is allegedly in a universe that contains no other masses. In addition, there can be no observers in the spacetime of the black hole because observers are material, yet according to the proponents of the black hole observers and much other matter miraculously appear from nowhere. Upon what solution to the field equations do they rely for multiple masses? None!

The black hole was spawned from a solution for the “field equations” Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. This black hole is called the “Schwarzschild” black hole, even though it is not even Schwarzschild’s solution and that Schwarzschild’s actual solution contains no black hole. Consider another “Schwarzschild” black hole. It comes from the very same solution for the first “Schwarzschild” black hole. Therefore each is located in a universe that contains no other masses, by construction. Proponents of the black hole claim that such black holes can exist in binary systems and are located at the centres of galaxies and interact with other matter in the galaxies. They also claim that these black holes can collide and merge. But this is impossible because it is already an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply! Consider the notion of two “Schwarzschild” black holes interacting with one another, as one finds in the literature. Then the two black holes mutually persist in and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by construction contains no matter! This is impossible. Similarly, there can be no masses other than black holes in the spacetime of some given black hole and thus nothing for it to interact with.

According to black hole theory it takes an infinite amount of “outside” observer time for a body to reach the event horizon of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time to make the observation. Thus the event horizon has no meaning in physics. Not only that, from where did the falling body and the observer miraculously appear, bearing in mind that there are no other masses in the spacetime of any given black hole? They come from again thoughtlessly applying the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply.

The proponents of the black hole make use of a test particle, but inadequately define what a test particle is. Let a test particle be a very small mass, as many proponents of the black hole claim. It is asserted that this can be done because the test mass is so small that it has no appreciable effect on the gravitational field involving the black hole. But if the test particle is massive, no matter how small initially, it can, by the laws of Special Relativity, become arbitrarily large, but finite, as it “falls” in the gravitational field of the black hole and hence results in a significant mass in the allegedly empty spacetime of the black hole. This is a two-body problem, but as we have seen there are no known solutions for two or more masses and no existence theorem by which the notion can be justified. If the test particle is not massive it is meaningless.

According to Einstein and his followers his Principle of Equivalence and his “laws” of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field and that these regions can be located anywhere in his gravitational field. Now both the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity are defined in terms of the a priori presence of multiple arbitrarily large finite masses and photons. Therefore it is impossible for the Principle of Equivalence and the “laws” of Special Relativity to manifest in a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. But Ric = 0, from which the “Schwarzschild” black hole is allegedly obtained, is a spacetime that by construction contains no matter. That is why Ric = 0 is called the static vacuum (i.e. empty) field equations. Thus Ric = 0 violates the physical principles of General Relativity and so is inadmissible and so the “Schwarzschild” black hole is again invalid.

The proponents of the black hole remove all matter, including sources, by setting Ric = 0. They then prepare the ground for the presence of a source by next saying that Ric = 0 describes the gravitational field “outside a body”. They remove all matter at the outset by setting Ric = 0 and immediately put a mass back in with the words “outside a body”. This is a subtle but circular argument and is therefore invalid. Now, when they get their “Schwarzschild solution” there is no matter present in the solution. To satisfy their “outside a body” they have to put a massive body into the solution. They do this by a post hoc insertion of the square of Newton’s expression for escape velocity. But as we have seen Newton’s escape velocity is an a priori two-body relation (one body escapes from another body) and so it cannot rightly appear in what is alleged to be an expression for a universe that contains only one mass. Thus mass is inserted into the “Schwarzschild” solution by sleight of hand. Not only that, the denominator of Newton’s expression for escape velocity is a true radius but it is not even a distance in “Schwarzschild” spacetime, let alone the radius therein.

It is also claimed that the black hole contains an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Now a simple calculation using Special Relativity shows that Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Recall that Special Relativity must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein’s gravitational field. Therefore, there can be no infinitely dense point-mass singularity in Einstein’s gravitational field. Furthermore, a point is a mathematical object, not a physical object. It therefore cannot be massive or infinitely dense. In Newton’s theory there are infinitely dense point-masses too. They are called centres of mass. A centre of mass is not a physical object, merely a mathematical artifice. One can go to the store and buy a bag full of marbles but one cannot go to the store and by a bag full of centres of mass of the marbles. The proponents of the black hole claim that their infinitely dense point-mass singularities are physical objects. That is invalid too. The black hole is allegedly formed by irresistible gravitational collapse. Nobody has ever observed an astronomical body undergo gravitational collapse into zero volume and there is not one shred of laboratory evidence to suggest that masses can undergo such a process.

The signatures of a black hole are an event horizon and an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. Nobody has ever found an event horizon or an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and so nobody has ever found a black hole, despite the now almost daily claims for black holes being found in multitudes, all over the place. Note once again that the multitude involves an application of the Principle of Superposition where the Principle of Superposition does not apply. All claims for the discovery of black holes are wishful thinking, not science.

Black hole proponents often claim that the Michell-Laplace dark body from Newton’s theory is a kind of black hole. The Michell-Laplace dark body of Newton’s theory is theoretical. Nobody has ever found one of them either. Note however that the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole: it has an escape velocity whereas the black hole does not have an escape velocity (see above); there is always a class of observers that can see the M-L dark body but according to the relativists there is no class of observers that can see the black hole; the dark body exists in a universe full of matter whereas the black hole is alone in the universe; the black hole has an event horizon, but the M-L dark body has no event horizon; the black hole has an infinitely dense point-mass singularity, but the M-L dark body does not; the black hole is created by irresistible gravitational collapse but the M-L dark body is not so created. Thus, the M-L dark body does not possess the signatures of a black hole and so it is not a black hole.

Stephen J. Crothers

Calling people idiots and complaining about privacy rights is unbecoming a real scientist.

Science is supposed to be done out in the open and people are supposed to criticize each others work.

Please provide us with a multiple black hole existence theorem, explain why matter can take the form of having zero spatial extent according to SR, and provide papers where r denotes something more than inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric geodesic surface in the spatial section of “Schwarzschild” spacetime.

I’ll assume by your reply that you are incapable of answering our criticisms because our criticisms are entirely valid.

How do you feel when you look at yourself in the mirror in the morning knowing that your entire job is to sell the public lies so you can continue taking their money?

Unlike priests and rabbi’s who get their money by voluntary donations, you get your paycheck primarily from public funding. Which means people don’t have a choice about giving you their money, even if they completely disagree with you.

Shame on you.

Dear Mr. Corda,
 
I would like to thank you for taking the time to enlighten us about the way peer review really works. We’ve heard complaints from famous „cranks” now and then, but you offered us a glimpse from within the system. After reading all your posts here, I am now fully convinced that all the criticism which peer-review has taken over the years is not only justified, but not nearly as harsh as it needs to be!
 
The highlight of your replies has been the first sentence: “it is not correct that I refused publication of Mr. Crothers’ papers based on ideological disagreements.” If you had stopped there, it would’ve been believable and appearances could have been saved. But by continuing, you have unwittingly exposed the real motivation behind peer review, which has a lot more to do with authority and selfishness than it has to do with competence and objectivity.
 
According to your own account, you have lost 12 years trying to learn GR and you think you have learned „maybe 5-10% of this beautiful theory”. This is an admission of monumental incompetence, which means you are driven in your actions by belief, not knowledge. If you know it would take you 120-240 years to fully learn this „beautiful” theory, then you should also know that you have absolutely no competence to judge how well others understand it after only 12. years of learning If they may actually understand 100% in just a few years, how would you be able to realize it, if you only understand 5-10% in 12 years?! Further more, how can you judge that a theory is „beautiful” if you have not even understood it yet?! Your opinion on relativity is obviously based on an irrational belief in it, since you lack a complete understanding of it.
 
By actually making judgements about other people’s work on something you do not understand yourself, you are proving that you have a cognitive bias known as the „Dunning–Kruger effect”, in which unskilled people (by your own admission) make poor decisions and reach erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to recognize their mistakes, and therefore the unskilled people suffer from illusory superiority, rating their ability as above average, much higher than it actually is.
 
After exposing your own incompetence, you conclude that you are not interested in philosophical discussions with people who might actually BE competent, but you wouldn’t be able to see it (by the way, philosophy literally means „love of wisdom” and implies  a systematic approach and reliance on rational argument). People who are of different opinions than your own are „boring” you and any claims that they make are „unscientific” because they contradict your own and your peer reviewers, which are, of course, „scientific” claims by default, because you are „professional” scientists (as in it’s your job). So is this the bottom line of peer reviewing: protecting job security?! You surely make it look that way!
 
By engaging in this discussion, you have given a lot of us one more reason to doubt the establishment „consesus” by peer review, and encouraged us to actually pay even closer attention to some of these so-called „cranks”. I think the expectation of many of us is that, most likely, it will be just one of these „cranks” that will come up with the solution for this huge gap in understanding of nature, not the establishment, which doesn’t even acknowledge this gap!
 
Thank you again, for all your efforts.

So you believe that an infinitely dense point mass particle exists, which is in violation of special relativity?

And you believe this because, rather than seeing matter being sucked into a “black hole,” we witness massive discharges of matter across galactic scales emanating from the center of AGNs?

Perhaps you believe that galactic formation models under GR would be impossible without black holes, therefore they must be real – even if physicists have to throw in fake matter and energy on top of the black hole postulate to make their models work?

You say Crothers is engaged in “unscientific conduct” – I say you are engaged in ramming a religion down the public’s throat with no good evidence to support your nonsense.

“we should try and stick to the mathematics”

Mathematics without a framework of logic and reason within which to interpret the results is useless.  There was a reason why natural philosophy played such a large role in cosmology prior to the 20th century.  

The question is not whether you can create numerically valid models within Einstein’s relativity that match observation, the question is whether Einstein’s relativity is the best answer to what we observe.  

Clearly there are much simpler solutions to what we observe that are not predicated on things like black holes, dark matter, dark energy, wimps, machos, multiple dimensions, gravitational waves, god particles, etc.. etc.. etc..   Therefore, since alternative explanations exist that better match the data, Occam’s razor demands that those theories take precedence over Einstein’s.

A paper I wrote on this:

http://knol.google.com/k/michael/einstein-was-wrong-falsifying/31bvt2170ijjb/1#

I think they are entirely relevant to the discussion.  You can supposedly provide math that will validate the existence of a black hole based on Hilbert’s derivation of the field equations – I say so what?

What if the assumptions Hilbert made are wrong?  Since we don’t know what gravity is, what causes it, how to shield it or how to manipulate it, it strikes me as a bit presumptuous to conclude that gravity can manipulate space and time in the manner prescribed by Hilbert’s “black hole”.

It also strikes me as ridiculous that GR ignores everything electrical in its interpretation of the cosmos.  It assumes that gravity is the only force of any consequence, when our radio telescopes tell us a very different story.

When you make the assumption that space and time can be combined and distorted by an unknown force such as gravity in the manner prescribed by Hilbert, there are no cosmological observations that could ever falsify the theory.  For example, make up a cosmological observation in your mind that would entirely invalidate General Relativity.  I’ll bet you can’t do it because Einstein’s theory allows for any configuration of space and time, and for those observations that don’t work out, physicists simply throw in fake matter and energy to plug the holes.

When you have dark matter, dark energy, black holes and bending space at your disposal, there are no observations that can not be explained away.  Clearly this does not mean the explanations are VALID anymore than Ptolemy’s epicycles were valid. 

Just because you can use trickery in a mathematical equation to make it balance by bending space and time, that does not mean the model reflects reality in anyway what-so-ever.  GR is exactly like Ptolemy’s cosmology.  It is not predicated on science, it is nothing more than mathematical modeling clay for numbers geeks.  It explains nothing.

Math may be concrete but theories of bending space most certainly are not.

Dark matter exists!  Oh wait, it doesn’t!  Oh wait, it does!  Does it exist?  Sounds real concrete to me.

Clearly.

However, there is no proof that space actually bends.  In order for space to bend, it must have physical properties that can act upon matter.  There is no evidence such properties of space exist.  

You may point to things such as the MM experiment, but if we look at LaFreniere’s work, we can see that there are alternative explanations for why such experiments turn up a null result other than bending space.

Since bending “nothing” imparting force upon some “thing” is logically ridiculous, bending space should be rejected until all other possible avenues of physical explanations have been exhausted.

http://glafreniere.com/matter.htm

Physics must be tied to reality. Reality is clear that nothing can not impart force upon something.

Corda,

First, you ignored my previous post and so I can only conclude that you are not interested in the facts, which does not surprise me. Second you misrepresent me because I have no knowledge of the theory of Prof. Myron Evans and the theory of Dr. A. Sharma. You further misrepresent me as to my expertise in differential geometry to which my previous post attests. You also falsely assert that I do not understand General Relativity again as my previous post attests. Third, you attack me ad hominen by calling me a crank instead of dealing with the facts in my previous post. Whether you like it or not the black hole is a dead duck, and was always a dead duck, and must surely find its place in the dustbin of scientific history. The paper you posted to the arXiv is nonsense, as my papers haven proven. Interested readers can find all my papers here:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

and on the vixra site.

The waste of vast sums of public money in the search for black holes, Einstein’s gravitational waves and vestiges of the big bang nonsense must be stopped. The public purse has been fleeced by the peddlers of the foregoing nonsense.

I refer you back to my previous post and request you to prove that my papers on differential geometry are wrong. This will be a tall order for you, because my referenced papers are valid.

I see nothing wrong in posting our correspondence on scientific matters so that all interested in the subject can decide for themselves what is and what is not correct. You came off pretty badly in our correspondence and so you seek to prevent others from seeing this. I intend to ensure that our correspondence is made available to all interested persons.

Stephen J. Crothers

The Russian theoretician and specialist in General Relativity, Dr. Dmitri Rabounski, has confirmed that my analysis is correct that that black holes cannot form in Schwarzschild spacetime. Here is his straightforward paper:

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2008/PP-12-18.PDF

The black hole, in all its forms, is nonsense.

Stephen J. Crothers

“…but I use science, not ideology.”

Excuse me, Dr Corda, with due respect, your replies suggest that more math than science has been employed in arriving at your conclusions. Your entrenched position very much resembles an ideology, even a religion, and you present as an adherent rather than an investigator. Your refusal to enter into related philosophical discussions surrounding the central topic further suggests the actions of an adherent, not a scientist. An investigator should welcome the question and the challenge, while someone with a vested interest in the status quo would not.

Your blocking publication of a scientific paper based solely on your personal opinion further erodes your claim of being more scientific than ideological. Why not allow publication, if you are so confident in your theory, and let the scientific community decide what to believe? You could even publish a point-by-point rebuttal if you feel so strongly. Censorship is the tactic of an ideological adherent, not a scientist.

Let me just say that from the perspective of this amateur scientist, black holes are charter members of a troupe of mythical, fanciful, imaginative, impossible ad-hoc band-aids slapped onto a medley of theories hopelessly falsified by observation and experimentation that comprise the Standard Model of Cosmology. The refusal of mainstream scientists to even allow challenges to their firmly held — I would say ‘cherished’ — beliefs, hints at a science community terrified by the prospect of Occam’s Razor slicing the Standard Model to ribbons.  With good cause, it would seem.

Because he is smarter than you?? Geniuses exist in various fields that have the ability to learn certain things much quicker than regular people… Ask me how I know….