Mathematician Claims Black Holes Don't Add Up!

Originally posted by Astyanax

None of them is going to waste time debunking, or even paying attention to, the claims of one who cannot keep his temper and his opinions to himself long enough to earn himself a doctorate. Such people and their work are not even worth discussing. And indeed, I propose to discuss Mr. Crothers no further.

So, you suggest that because others didn't understand or misrepresented his work and he was more-or-less frozen out of PhD candidature that he's "not even worth discussing?"

So, basically, any time someone gets frozen out of academia their ideas simply become worthless, regardless of whether they are correct or not? In-freaking-credible!

What you're saying seems to be tantamount to saying that the current power structure can "freeze out" their competitors and everyone else must then fall in line, "shun" the outcasts and pay them no attention? And what if the current power structure has things back-@$$ward? Will we have to resign ourselves to their back-@$$wardness forever, or until they die off, or thre's more-or-less a revolution in the streets? (I'm not saying that is anywhere near happening, just as a thought experiment under such an oligarchical system.)

Again, it seems to come down to that "appeal to authority" fallacy. Just because a few people who are currently in favor claim something, it doesn't "make it so." Nor should such a system be allowed to remove the freedom of speech or association from someone, by fiat.

~Michael

But, I think we've ranged a bit wide of the original topic of black holes... Perhaps we should get back to that.

~Michael

Originally posted by Astyanax

And does plasma cosmology furnish a comprehensive world-picture in the same way as general relativity does, or Newtonian mechanics did? In other words, is it consistent both within itself and in its predictions about the real world?

It does, as far as I know, make real-world predictions, yes. Several of which appear to have been correct, some of which are yet indeterminate. IS it "complete?" No, probably not. Is the "big bang" model "complete" yet either? No, not really. And many of the foundational assumptions appear to be shaky or already violated (or very close to it, in the case of inflation [vs the fractal distribution of matter in the universe, gleaned by researchers looking into SDSS-II data]).

The interesting thing is that Plasma Cosmology extends lab plasma science into the cosmic realm and does try to offer specific answers to cosmic questions from the perspective of plasma, electricity, magnetism, etc.

Also interestingly, the plasma cosmological view in some regions reduces to a gravitational system by way of charge neutralization. The theory goes along the lines that the filaments of plasma seen ubiquitously, and which are usually found to have magnetic fields local to them, are (surprise!) large scale currents (hence the magnetic fields are an expected byproduct, by definition). These currents may pinch (hence the filamentary structure), and in the process of pinching may also engage in Marklund convection (which sorts matter by ionization potential, with neutralized matter aggregating into clumps). Once neutral matter aggregates, gravity takes over (as the stronger electrical forces are now cancelled out).

So, gravity *is* accounted for in the models (contrary to the assertion of those who have not sufficiently READ plasma cosmology or electric universe). Alfvén's pronouncement that "gravitational systems are the ashes of prior electrical systems," seems prescient and sage, in this light.

Also, in the gravity-only model, galaxy rotation curves don't match based on the amount of observable matter. Hence scientists unscientifically plastered in "dark matter" (which has no laboratory support, thus is an astronomical fudge factor). PIC (particle-in-cell) simulations using ONLY electrical forces, were able to match galaxy rotation curves and many other features, lending credence to the plasma model of galaxies and removing the need for "dark matter" to painted in everywhere (granted that may mean a few current notions, if wrong, would have to be revised).

(Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets)
public.lanl.gov...

(Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies)
public.lanl.gov...

Anyway, a small taste of the PC approach to things. Other investigations, I'll leave you to do on your own... Might start here:

public.lanl.gov...

Plenty of yummy scientific goodness from LANL plasma research.

Regards,
~Michael

[edit on 10-9-2008 by mgmirkin]

I think it's not adding up to him, because he's thinking of black holes as being the literal physical manifestation of the negative matter in the universe.

My theory is that it's merely the physical representation of an equal sign.
You might laugh... but hear me out.

Universe started with 0.

0 = 0

Universe acquired matter, in order for this to happen, an equal amount of negative matter must exist.

(X) + (-X) = 0

Both matter and anti-matter cannot co-exist in the same system, without canceling each other out. Which I think is where this mathematician is having difficulties. But he's missed the obvious trick... they don't exist in the same system.
Take the negative matter and throw it on the other side of the equation.

(X) = (X)

Two co-existing systems, with tears (black holes / equal signs) between the two.
The tears occur when too much mass on one or both sides accumulates at single points (supernova anyone?)... increasing the attraction between the two systems at that point so much so, that they force the two systems to allow interaction, and hence, tear through both systems to do so.

Mass attraction (gravity) between the two systems occurs and is focused at these tears (the mass of an entire other system attracting yours to that point), both systems are still considered as opposites, and hence, upon reaching these tears (black holes) they cancel each other out either within the tear, or once interacting with the opposing matter on the other side.

0 = 0
0 + (X) + (-X) = 0
(X) = (X)
(X) -1 + 1 = (X)
(X) -1 = (X) -1
keep going and eventually...
0 = 0 again
restart trick with X (Big Bang)
Which is mathematically simple, as you haven't created something from nothing, because in total, you still have nothing.
All the big bang did was scatter 0 into equal negative and positive quantities.

It didn't take an ounce of effort to do. No big being, no mystical force... just an infinite amount of time for it to happen (that infinite amount of time passes instantaneously as there's nothing to bind it to) basically meaning, an infinite possibility of 0 decaying into a disordered state of Matter and Negative Matter.
Meaning it had to happen... it was just a matter of time. No matter how long it takes for 0 to decay... , that time passes instantaneously with nothing to interact with... or at least, from our perspective it would seem that way.


But hey... it's not like anyone cares, right?
People are more interested in ditsy blonds proving they're mentally handicapped on TV, rather than how everything exists and where the missing negative matter is.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by johnsky]

This forum has been brought to my attention. Usually I don't bother commenting in places where various antagonists ignore scientific method and instead hurl irrational epithets in lame attempts to discredit the message by vilifying the messenger. I note in particular that I have yet again been abused here in this way and that none of my scientific arguments have been scientifically refuted or even scientifically considered by the abusers in this forum. The attempts to discredit my science my calling me names is futile, and rather illuminating as well.

The scientific facts have been reported in this forum by links to various of my papers, some of which are written with the educated layman in mind, so that mathematics is not needed. Sadly my opponents here have not bothered to read them, which is all to apparent. Adversaries are again directed to actually read my papers instead of making claims in ignorance.

The black hole is alleged to have an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. The Theory of Special Relativity forbids infinite density because infinite density implies that a material body can acquire the speed of light in vacuum, contrary to the fundamental postulates of Special Relativity. General Relativity cannot by definition violate Special Relativity, and so it too forbids infinite density. Thus the infinitely dense point-mas singularity of the black hole is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity, and so Relativity forbids black holes.

Another signature of the alleged black hole is an event horizon. According to the theory of black holes, it takes an infinite amount of time for an observer to verify the presence of a black hole. But nobody has been and nobody will be around for an infinite amount of time, and so the alleged event horizon can never be identified.

It is claimed almost daily now that black holes are found yet again here and there and everywhere. But nobody has ever found an infinitely dense point-mass singularity and nobody has ever found an event horizon, so nobody has ever found a black hole. Moreover, since infinite density is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity and since event horizons can't ever be verified, it is impossible for anybody to find a black hole: because they don't exist.There is no theory that predicts them and there is on physical evidence for them.

The alleged "Schwarzschild solution" from which the black hole was originally conjured is not even Schwarzschild's solution. Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes. One can verify this by just reading Schwarzschild's original paper, whcih I have cited in my papers. Here it is again: www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

The quantity 'r' appearing in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is ALWAYS treated by the proponents of the black holes a radial distance in the associated spacetime. However, this is demonstrably false because it is in fact the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of a spherical surface and so it does not even denote a distance of any kind in the associated spacetime. This fact is irrefutable. I have given the mathematical proof several times in different ways. Here it is again:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

in the papers dealing with Spherically Symmetric Metric Manifolds and Anomalies General Relativity. This is pure mathematics and irrefutable. Yet it too is ignored by the proponents of the black hole: because it is of itself sufficient to invalid their theory. So they say nothing and blunder on with their demonstrable falsehoods.

As for my PhD, those vilifying me here have conveniently failed to report the prominent fact contained in the webpage I have written on this matter, supported by documentary evidence, that Prof. Chris Hamer of the University of New South Wales committed a major academic offence by ALTERING my work and with that alteration misrepresented me before the University authorities: www.geocities.com/theometria/PhD.html

Originally posted by johnsky
I think it's not adding up to him, because he's thinking of black holes as being the literal physical manifestation of the negative matter in the universe.

Well, if you'd even cursorily read any of the links supplied, you'd see that your assessment / opinion isn't on the mark, unfortunately. No offense. Seems more like your own meandering personl opinon /theory moreso than anything in relation to Crothers' work.

At no point has Crothers ever mentioned anything about "negative matter in the universe." What does that even mean? I'm not really sure.

Crothers believes black holes are fictitious because the maths used to justify their existence is simply incorrect and/or misinterpreted (according to him, he's rigorously mathematically proven that the maths others have used to justify black holes are nonsensical, corrupted derivations of the original papers by Schwarzchild, Droste & Brillouin, which showed NO black holes were possible).

Anywho...
~Michael

reply to post by Anonymous ATS


Hey there Stephen, thanks for popping in. Why not sign up? Perhaps it can draw more attention to your work and your story.
Let it be a lesson to the to the trolls, slander on the internet and they may just turn up to challenge you on it. Nice one.

reply to post by squiz

If the anonymous poster is Mr. Crothers, he is most welcome to join the conversation. Like squiz, I encourage him to register and carry on the good fight as an ATS member. My remarks concerning him stand; they are veracious, as the anonymous poster appears to confirm in his post. As for my opinions, I stand by them, though I must admit I rather regret calling him a brat.

By the way: from his post (if it is indeed he), it doesn't look as if he's much of a supporter of electric-universe theories.

Surely my previous post made it clear that I am the author thereof. Astyanax seems not only unwilling to read my papers and address the scientific arguments (quite usual), but has taken a dislike to me (not unusual). I couldn't care less, because I'm a vulgar working-class bloke who is quite content with his working-class vulgarity. But my personality has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity of my mathematical physics. Unfortunately for the fops and dandies of science and academe I can do geometry, and by geometry and a little physics I have proven in simple terms that their black holes and big bangs are fallacious, much to their consternation. I repeat my invitation for Astyanax to provide demonstrations of his allegations that I am not able to do science, by providing rigorous proofs of any alleged errors in my arguments. Let us begin say with my demonstration that infinite density is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity and so the black hole, with its tell-tale infinitely dense point-mass singularity, is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity. Astyanax can prove that I'm a mug by giving a proof that the Theory of Relativity permits infinite density. Resort to abuse and vilification is not scientific method and so does not count.

reply to post by S.J.Crothers

You won't believe how many imposters we get on AboveTopSecret. Your earlier post proves nothing beyond the fact that the poster knows physics and is familiar with Stephen Crothers' writings on the internet.

The post to which I am now replying, however, bears the unmistakable imprimatur of the true, the blushful S.J. Crothers: 'fops and dandies of academe', et cetera.

Now that I know who you are for certain, I can do little but apologize for calling you that naughty four-letter-word. As for your insistence that I critique your maths or your physics, kindly see this post. Besides, assessing your work was a task for those entrusted with scrutinizing your thesis. They have already had their say, and there is nothing of value any layman - myself and your defenders on this thread included - can add to it.

[edit on 12-9-2008 by Astyanax]

As a layman myself I believe the average person can add to the argument through means of simplicity and common sense, didn't Einstein say if you can't explain something simply then you cannot explain it at all? Or something like that.
A logical person can see that an infinitely dense point of matter should only exist in the realms of sci fi, and should realise it has never been observed despite all the linguistic acrobatics. Realize that jets exploding at near light speed from a so called singularity defies all previous conceptions of black hole theory and still so I believe.
Someone interested in the subject may even know that many of the effects of black holes are recreated right here on Earth every time a dense plasma focus device is fired and that black holes are simply a product of mathematical masturbation based on a gravitational theory that ignores the most dominate and powerful force in the universe completely.
Occam's razor anyone?

I thought I would link one of my favorite documentaries on the subject it's a fair length but will give a good insight to the laymen as to the current and very sad state of the queen of the sciences, cosmology. You'll see that Stephens story is not so unique and perhaps it may change some peoples opinion of the higher education systems. You'll hear from both steady state, plasma cosmologists and other astronomers in the field and see in simple terms how weak the big bang theory really is.
Have a listen to what these "heretics" have to say.

Part 1A
Part 1B
Part 1C
Part 1D

Part 2 deals mainly with plasma cosmology.

Part 2A
Part 2B
Part 2C
Part 2D
Part 2E

A little away from the specifics of the black hole argument however being a product of a gravitational theory the roots of the theory must also be examined. Also if you take the time to watch you can see the relevance to Stephens experience. I'll add some more black hole stuff later.

For now I leave you with the wisdom of Red Dwarfs comedic genius.

Holly - "Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?"

I understand Stephens theories may not be inline with those of plasma cosmology, however I support him because he has found falsification within the system itself to prove the relativists have made a mockery of astronomy. I've also linked his papers here a couple of times before.
Now I'm am not in denial of relativistic effects, I stated my opinion earlier, but I do believe even Einstein was critical of what the relativists were doing with his theory.
I also support him because he is a free thinker and immune to the indoctrination process it seems.
Anyway if falsification cannot be found in Stephens work other than nerds on physics forums, then I expect there would be a resounding silence only filled by the occasional egotistical empty rhetoric from the establishment.

Yeah I'm bored tonight.

Great vid on black holes, could use some better tunes though.





[edit on 12-9-2008 by squiz]

reply to post by Astyanax


I recall that you (Astyanax) alleged that I am not a scientist. Now you confess that you cannot even address my scientific arguments for lack of expertise. Then on what scientific grounds could you have possibly made your allegation? It therefore appears, at least prima facie, that your motivation to your initial attack upon me was other than scientific, and having nothing to do with my science. Furthermore, you failed to correctly report the circumstances of my PhD, even though you went to some length to try to discredit me on that account. I note also that you have not condemned Prof. Chris Hamer for alteration of my work and his subsequent misrepresentation, and the other professors and officials at UNSW for condoning Hamer's misconduct, which is proven by the documents I have posted to my relevant webpage. Evidently, university officials can commit a grave academic offence with impunity according to your views, and those such as I suffering the offence must suffer it in silence. I disagree. Offenders must be held accountable for their misdeeds and so I reported all the events and facts. Furthermore, before being excommunicated from UNSW I taught physics there. I wrote all the course notes (there was no assigned textbook) for the course I gave, I wrote all the related examinations, I graded all the students, and after 3 months (after the course and grading records had been completed by me) UNSW had still not paid me a single penny, in violation of my contract. Then the UNSW officials passed most of the students I had failed because, as I was told by the secretary to the Head of First Year Physics, "they're paying customers". Marvelous. When I was asked if I'd teach the subject again, I refused, owing to the UNSW unwritten policy on student pass rates and student dollars. Shortly later I was excommunicated. I did not include this episode on my website, for lack of documentary evidence.

You accused me of not admitting that I can be wrong. That is false too, as a perusal of my webpages demonstrates, as I have found errors in my own published papers, and so I published corrections:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

Since you are allegedly unable to address even the simplest arguments I have adduced that prove the black hole (and the big bang) entirely fallacious, and on that basis refuse to engage in scientific discussion, then one can only wonder as to what motivated you to post anything here about me and my work in the first place, in your admitted ignorance of my scientific arguments and mathematical analysis.

I have noted your apology for calling me a "thwarted brat", but it hardly makes amends for your appalling behaviour and lack of scientific integrity.

Finally, I am far from "blushful", as my writings testify and my posts here reaffirm. I'm a knockabout bloke and tough old bastard who cares not a jot for the affections of "polite society". Like Voltaire, I laugh at the divine rights of kings. I make no apologies for my personality. And I'm essentially self-taught into the bargain. University degrees are, I can assure all, only pieces of paper that can be sometimes useful in getting a job. They do not necessarily connote knowledge or ability, and they are no substitute for free thought. After all, it has been those with PhD's who have come up with the demonstrable rot of black holes, big bangs, and the Higgs boson, and with them fleeced the taxpayer of billions of dollars, by induced hysteria and lie, for projects that are based upon demonstrably false theories.

I invite yet again any rigorous demonstration that my analyses are wrong.

reply to post by squiz


Just to clarify - I have no theories. My work is wholly within the context of General Relativity, which is Einstein's theory. I offer no alternative theory. There are certain claims for General Relativity, e.g. black holes, big bang, gravitational waves. I have shown that these alleged phenomena are not predicted by General Relativity at all, and are due to erroneous mathematics and misapplication of the physical principles of General Relativity. Moreover, I have shown that Einstein's field equations violate the usual conservation of energy and momentum. Since there is no experimental evidence invalidating the usual conservation of energy and momentum, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity is incorrect. Physics is an experimental science, despite the fantastic claims of the theoreticians to the contrary. Mathematics is only the handmaiden of physical science. The physical Universe is not compelled to abide by any mathematical formula devised by a scientist. Yet contemporary theoreticians try just that - to convince all an sundry that their mathematical theories are absolute and that Nature must obey their claims. That is unscientific, but now commonplace.

reply to post by Astyanax


Owing to its simplicity I give here the simple proof that infinite density is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity. That is of itself sufficient to invalidate the notion of the black hole. The proof requires only algebra that 16 year olds have learnt at school.

The black hole is alleged to have an infinitely dense point-mass singularity. It is allegedly obtained from General Relativity, which is called General because it is a generalization of Special Relativity to include the gravitational field. Thus, by definition, General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity. Indeed, Einstein explicitly stated that in a sufficiently small region of his gravitational field the laws of Special Relativity must hold. Now recall that according to Special Relativity no material body can acquire the speed c of light in vacuum.

Also, according to Special Relativity there is no absolute motion, only relative motion between bodies. Consider two bodies at rest (i.e. their relative velocity is zero), one of rest-mass Mo and one of rest-mass mo. Let each of these rest-masses be cuboid in shape, of sides Lo and Xo respectively.

Now let the masses have a relative velocity of magnitude v. Consider the situation from the perspective of the mass Mo. According to Special Relativity the observer with mass Mo sees a change in the mass mo according to the relation

m = mo /√(1 – v^2/c^2)

and the volume V of the other mass observed by Mo is given by

V = Xo^3 √(1 – v^2/c^2).

Recall from high school that the density D of a body is defined as the mass divided by its volume. Accordingly, the density observed by Mo is

D = m/V = mo / [Xo^3(1 – v^2/c^2)].

This becomes infinite as v approaches c. But no material body can acquire the speed c according to the fundamental hypothesis of Special Relativity. Therefore, Special Relativity forbids infinite density. Since General Relativity cannot violate Special Relativity it too forbids infinite density. But the black hole singularity is alleged to be infinitely dense, in violation of the Theory of Relativity. Hence, the black hole is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity.

This result is reciprocal, i.e. it is the same from the point of view of the observer of rest-mass mo.

reply to post by S.J.Crothers


Thanks for the clarification, I agree 100%. Your point of view is music to my ears, even though I'm an outsider looking in, but with a deep interest in the subject.
I think Terrence Mckenna said something to the effect of "Who's says advanced monkeys should be able to comprehend the mysteries of the universe?"

reply to post by S.J.Crothers

Yes, that's so simple even someone as mathematically 'inept' as me can understand it.

And to think all the professors with their doctorates and publications and gigantic reputations didn't spot it for half a century. Well, well.

And this would be simply because they, too, are all inept? That they couldn't see that n/0 equals infinity?

Has any of your former colleagues, or any other reputable scientist, ever endorsed your conclusions? Can you post or link us to some of these endorsements?

By the way, 'the true, the blushful' - as even a 'knockabout bloke and tough old bastard' may not blush to deny ignorance - is a literary reference.

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Again stupidity and insult instead of scientific argument, and the usual inept appeal to herded authority. Instead of verbal diarrhea you should provide a proof that the simple argument I have given is false. What I have given is sufficient to prove that infinite density is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity and so the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity. This irrefutable simple fact has been ignored by the proponents of the black hole, and that is plain. Their arguments are consequently unscientific, and false, as the simple proof testifies. Those on this forum can think for themselves, given all the facts. Evidently you can't or won't think for yourself. Let's see if your lame and thoughtless attempt at refutation is accepted by the others here. Is the simple proof I have given true or false? And if false, provide a proof of its falsity.

Good to see you here Steve... your Dad and my Dad (Les) are best mates and we all grew up together while we were at Kogarah...so you will know who I am.

I am sorry people here find it hard to argue the evidence, and would rather just attack the person.

Thats just life I guess.

I have visited your site many times, and I have to say, its all a bit hard for this humble tradesman to understand, but the above posts of yours have helped me greatly.

Keep fighting the good fight and say Hi to your folks for me

Cheers

Dave