Mathematician Claims Black Holes Don't Add Up!, page 3

reply to post by S.J.Crothers

---

The length of the moving object is contracted by 1/gamma so your formulas are not quite right, but your conclusion of infinite density at the speed of light is correct.

Unfortunately the argument is circular. The conclusion that a speed equal to the speed of light is forbidden is precisely because it requires the object to have infinite energy.

However you can not say that a black hole has infinite energy since it's mass is finite and E = m c ^2 .

That doesn't mean that a black hole is perhaps possible. The question really is, is a black hole a valid solution of Einsteins general relativity tensor equation?

I think this author is arguing that it is not a valid solution.

reply to post by SevenThunders

---

You are incorrect. The formulae I have given are correct. And see the result of D = m/V.

The argument is not circular. Infinite density is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity because the fundamental postulate on the speed of light in vacuo requires that no material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum. The singularity of the alleged black hole is infinite. It is a question of infinite densities. They do not exist. Furthermore, your claim that the black hole has a mass m is incorrect for other reasons. See the cited papers on this forum. So your writing of E = mc^2 in relation thereto is erroneous.

reply to post by Astyanax

---

Astyanax, your derision is futile, and the mark of a man who is not interested in scientific truth. All your irrational hot air and derision amounts to nothing but irrational hot air and derision, and is therefore of no account. You harp on your appeal to authority, the very same authority, with its PhD's, which is responsible, as I previously pointed out, for the black hole, big bang, gravitational waves and Higgs boson rot, and the misappropriation of vast sums of taxpayers' money for themselves. Furthermore, major elements in that ignoble group have indeed conceded that my arguments are correct. The entire Editorial Board of The International Journal of Theoretical Physics, amongst which sits Roger Penrose, has acknowledged that two papers I sent it for publication, contain no technical errors. Notwithstanding, that Editorial Board refused to publish the two papers and refused to give a reason for not publishing them, despite its admissions as to the accuracy of my arguments.

Here is the Editorial Board of the International Journal of Theoretical Physics:

www.springer.com...

Here are the two papers I sent it:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...

and here is the email correspondence in which the Editorial Board made its admissions:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com...

Now unless you provide rigorous proofs of your alleged invalidity of any of my arguments, howsoever you construe your claims, you are useless to science and a deliberate nuisance to this forum.

I'm indeed ignorant of your literary source, just as you are ignorant of the works of A. B. Patterson. But what has this got to do with the price of fish?

reply to post by mungodave

---

Dave,

The mystery resolved.

Steve.

reply to post by S.J.Crothers

---

But the 'simple argument' you give above isn't anything like the full story, is it, Mr. Crothers?

For instance, here are the opening remarks in a discussion about precisely the point you have spent your life promoting. It is soon and rather comprehensively shot down. Interested parties may follow the thread in that forum, starting with the link I have provided, to discover just how much you, Mr. Crothers, have left out of your presentation above - how much you have, in fact, deliberately not told us.

The forest of equations and references to obscure mathematics in your own paper on the subject also reveals that your 'explanation' here was facile and tendentious.

Your paper is written and titled, I see, in your usual pleasant and tactful style. That style is also luminously on display in your reply to the poor editor who refused to publish it, as well as in various other fulminations preserved here.

Frankly, Mr. Crothers, you seem to be your own worst enemy. I'm sure I'm not the first to tell you this - if you have friends and loved ones, they must surely have told you the same, probably to the point where it sickens you to hear it. But they are right. It would be better for you to give up this Quixotic and futile quest of yours, and seek meaning and fulfilment down other pathways.

reply to post by mgmirkin

---

Agreed! Check out my thread here...

Black Holes Are A Myth!! A Fraud Being Perpetuated By A Coterie Of Scientists?

I had asked this question about the reality of Black Holes to Dr Michio Kaku on the ATS podcast, and he said that Black holes were real and scientifically proved! They are everywhere, millions of them and super massive BHs in the center of certain galaxies.

So it's back to basics again! The Dr ain't no pushover!

Cheers!

reply to post by Astyanax

---

Astyanax, again you appeal to authority and resort to abuse, and now you stoop so low as to try to implicate my family. Irrational and malicious to say the least. No matter what you say or who you cite, the fact remains that you have not given a proof that the simple calculation I have given is invalid. Since you claim that you have understood it, either provide a proof that infinite density is not forbidden by Special Relativity or admit that it is forbidden. It's that simple.

Your latest accusations are still unscientific drivel. I stated at the beginning of my relevant post that owing to its simplicity I gave the calculation, since 16 year olds can follow it, they having the required knowledge of algebra. Links to more detail were given by another forum member. Anybody can go there for all the details. You have admitted that you do not have the mathematical adequacy to understand my published papers, but that hasn't stopped you from insult and derision in a silly and futile attempt to discredit my scientific arguments. This forum is frequented by persons who, like you, are in general weak in mathematics, so I refrained from complicated mathematics. All your posts indicate that you are not interested in scientific discussion or scientific truth. You simply viciously and cowardly attack me personally without disclosing your true motive. It evidently annoys you beyond your self-control that I will not allow you to get away with impunity. Stand-over men like you don't go far, and always meet more than their match.

Anybody on this forum can think and decide for themselves if the simple calculation I have given is correct or not. They don't need you to decide for them. And they don't need “professors” and other “authorities” to decide for them. Despite what you might think, people can decide for themselves when given all the facts. They have now a simple fact before them. Anybody on this forum is invited to prove my simple calculation erroneous, if they think it wrong. So you too can now show us all precisely where my simple calculation is wrong, without introducing extraneous material or authority to mislead and deflect. You do some simple algebra, and try to think for yourself, instead of appealing to others to support your claims.

I also note that the PhD's that you are so quick and happy to praise are the very same who falsely claim that “Schwarzschild's solution” is Schwarzschild's solution, and who falsely claim that Schwarzschild's solution predicts black holes, despite the irrefutable fact that “Schwarzschild's solution” is not Schwarzschild's solution, and the irrefutable fact that Schwarzchild's solution actually precludes black holes, verifiable by simply reading Schwarzschild's original paper, which I have previously cited and provided a link to, but which you too ignored, as usual. Yet it is they who assert falsely that you would have us all believe and take on trust, in lieu of our own thought and verification. Like Galileo's professors, who refused to look through his telescope to verify for themselves the simple facts, irrationally clinging instead to their cherished dogma, you too refuse. Here yet again is Schwarzschild's real paper: www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

I will not respond to anything more you post here unless it's other than your usual disingenuous diatribe. If you will not provide a proof that my simple calculation is incorrect by showing us all where precisely my algebra is incorrect and if you refuse to admit that “Schwarzschild's solution” is not Schwarzschild's solution, then you are a hopeless case. I suspect that you will do neither, and will again just do your mischievous worst, bereft of scientific intent.

If the majority on this forum wish it, I will discuss with them all the salient facts which prove the black hole and the big bang entirely false.

reply to post by S.J.Crothers

---

Just checking your formulas for a second.

Define the usual
gamma = 1/sqrt(1-v^2/c^2)

Note that gamma -> infinity as v -> c.

The moving object as seen in the rest frame sees a mass increase and a length contraction. Thus

m = m0 * gamma
length = l0 / gamma

But the length is only contracted in the direction of motion. I believe the orthogonal cube parameters are not contracted.

density = m / (length * l0^2) =
(m0 / l0 ^3) * gamma^2

Is that what you got? Maybe it is, so I stand corrected.

We agree that the density becomes infinite. But so what? The argument is circular because the speed of light barrier is assumed so that a particle can not have infinite energy.

Energy density is in fact the T00 component of the stress tensor in general relativity, but there is nothing to suggest that it can't be allowed to have a singularity from a strict mathematical sense. In fact since the left hand side involves a bunch of derivatives, a singularity would occur in the tensor for any discontinuities in the space time metric.

Again the real question is, can you satisfy the equation using a solution that involves a singularity? As we know some Green functions of important PDE's, have singularities. Whether that can be a real process in the physical world, I don't know. My suspicion is that it is in fact impossible, but is a practical approximation to a run away positive feedback loop as mass collapses and the density increases.

After all according to quantum mechanics there are no point masses, but only a probability fuzz. Since quantum mechanics and general relativity contradict each other something has to give. My guess is general relativity is flawed in some way.

reply to post by SevenThunders

---

For our general readers I limit mathematical argument. There is nothing in what follows that is beyond all on this forum. I use only algebra. You have reproduced the very same equations I gave, so you say:

“We agree that the density becomes infinite. But so what? The argument is circular because the speed of light barrier is assumed so that a particle can not have infinite energy.”

My argument is not circular. Einstein’s postulates for Special Relativity are:
(a) the speed of light in vacuo is the same for all inertial frames, (b) the laws of physics are the same for all inertial frames. It follows from these postulates that infinite energy is forbidden or equivalently that no material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuo. Equivalently, it follows that infinite density is forbidden, as the simple calculation shows. Thus, Special Relativity forbids infinite density, and since General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity by definition, it too forbids infinite density. When you write E = mc^2 for a black hole of finite mass m you amplify the contradiction in the black hole, because you have then an infinite density associated with a finite energy, which violates Special Relativity. So not only does the alleged black hole violate Special Relativity by virtue of its infinitely dense singularity, it also has an infinite density associated with a finite energy, which is contrary to Special Relativity, and hence contrary to General Relativity too, since the latter cannot violate the former. Thus the infinitely dense singularity of the black hole violates the Theory of Relativity, and so the black hole is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity.

You remark: “My guess is general relativity is flawed in some way.” You are right. Here is why. Ric = Rij = 0, by definition, describes an empty Universe. Einstein requires that The Principle of Equivalence and the laws of Special Relativity must manifest in his gravitational field. But they cannot manifest in a Universe that by definition contains no matter! Similarly, for Ric = 0 there is no energy density because the energy-momentum tensor is set to zero by hypothesis (there is no matter present). So Ric = 0 cannot describe Einstein’s gravitational field – it violates Einstein’s physical requirements for his gravitational field. According to Einstein, matter is the cause of the gravitational field and the causative matter is described by an energy-momentum tensor, which is coupled to geometry by his field equations, so that matter causes spacetime curvature (his gravitational field). Qualitatively his field equations are: Geometry = -k matter where matter is described by the energy-momentum tensor and -k is a constant. The geometry is described by Einstein’s tensor, Gij (subscripts i,j = 0,1,2,3) and the energy-momentum tensor is Tij. So Einstein’s field equations are:
Gij = -kTij. Since Ric = 0 cannot describe Einstein’s gravitational field, Einstein’s field equations cannot reduce to Ric = 0 when Tij = 0. In other words, if Tij = 0 (i.e. there is no matter) then there is no gravitational field. Consequently Einstein’s field equations must take the form
Gij /k + Tij = 0. This is an identity (the left and right sides of the equation are always zero). The Gij/k are the components of a gravitational energy tensor. Thus the total energy of Einstein’s gravitational field is always zero; the Gij/k and the Tij must vanish identically (i.e. when Tij = 0 then Gij = 0 and vice-versa); there is no possibility for the localization of gravitational energy (i.e. no Einstein gravitational waves). This also means that Einstein’s gravitational field violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum. Since there is no experimental evidence that the usual conservation of energy and momentum is invalid, Einstein’s General Theory violates the experimental evidence.

The secrets hidden in the pyramids. A real eye opener!
  Posted 4 days ago with 182 member flags

The mystery of 100+ mpg cars, and the disappearance & deaths of men behind it
  Posted 14 days ago with 105 member flags

Scientists able to talk to and teach dolphins sentences - Dolphins share a universal language.
  Posted 12 days ago with 93 member flags

6 Real People With Mind-Blowing Mutant Superpowers
  Posted 4 days ago with 90 member flags

Pirate Bay to Allow Real-Object Downloads. The Real Reason for SOPA, IMO.
  Posted 14 days ago with 74 member flags

a drop of water orbiting a nitting needle in space
  Posted 4 days ago with 69 member flags

Top 10 Most Incredible Pieces Of Nanoscale Art
  Posted 8 days ago with 43 member flags

cold plasma found above earth raises questions of einstiens "gravity is a fundimental force"
  Posted 17 days ago with 25 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: