Epic Black Hole Dispute Between Scientists

Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated Hilbert’s derivation of the field equations is incorrect. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity. Further, Schwarzschild’s original paper that proposed the solution to the Mercury orbit problem, from which the black hole is supposedly derived, is regular in all of space-time. This absolutely refutes the notion of black holes. Schwarzschild’s original paper in English can be found here. Hilbert’s solution to the field equations is erroneous.

Crothers undertook a long dialog with a Dr. Christian Corda, Editor-in-Chief of The Open Astronomy Journal, who freely admits that there is no such thing as black holes, but then refuses publication of Crothers' papers based on ideological disagreements.

It is interesting to note that black hole “non-believers” include Einstein and Schwarzschild, yet their names are continually put forth as backers of this theory. Out of respect for their positions, the use of Einstein’s and Schwarzschild’s names in conjunction with these objects should cease immediately.

Some choice quotes from the dialog:

Again Steve, I suggest you change your way of proceed. I think that you are surely a talented researcher within gravitational physics, I agree with you that black-holes do not exist, but nobody will follow you if you insist to claim that not only the present community of gravitational physicists, but also the same Einstein, Schwarzschild, Hilbert, etc., i,e. the Founders Fathers of General Relativity, were wrong and the only correct person is Steve Crothers. in particular, be sure that I will NEVER follow you.

To summarize the dialog, Crothers pointed out that the equation scientists use in their formulation of black holes is wrong because it doesn't actually give a boundary condition for the supposed edge of a black hole.

No boundary = no black hole.

The equation physicists use to describe the boundary of a black hole is totally arbitrary and is an artifact of a bad equation first formulated by one David Hilbert.

Crothers personal saga to see this error of physics corrected has led him into some absolutely insane confrontations. It is worth clicking his name to read all about it.


Watch Crothers explain the madness here:

SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I am not actually arguing the point of your thread about the dispute... but I'd like to see absolute proof and the math behind this statement.

As far as I know, nobody has ever proven that the singularity in a black hole is of infinite mass. In fact, I thought that Hawking and Beckenstein showed that it eventually runs out of mass through the release of radiation which leads to 'black hole evaporation' (aka Hawking radiation for those Wiki fanatics)?

Otherwise, great work! S&F.

~Namaste

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


All the papers are there for free.

You can download all the math you like from his site.

Given that we now know black holes do not exist, you should all check out my site for further evidence that refutes Einstein's nonsense.

For those of you who want a layman's explanation for what is really going on, watch this:
video.google.com...#

You can find supporting scientific papers for all of the claims made in the video by going here:
knol.google.com...#

If you want more articles that detail what is really going on for the layman, look here:
www.thunderbolts.info...

I'm sorry , but I don't understand math at all...

In lay man's terms. How is it possible for a point of infinite masse to merge with another point with infinite mass and become an even bigger infinite mass ? Like will the merging ever stop ?

Originally posted by Sinter Klaas
I'm sorry , but I don't understand math at all...

In lay man's terms. How is it possible for a point of infinite masse to merge with another point with infinite mass and become an even bigger infinite mass ? Like will the merging ever stop ?

This is a good question.

Basically if you order an IRS agent to hold a gun to my head and demand 40% of my wages, then hand that money to a federally funded astrophysicist, you will get an answer from him that is somewhere between twenty million and forty two point five.

Honestly, does anyone have a clue about quantum mechanics or whats really truly going on within an atom ? Even the people that say they know say this, " If you think you know quantum mechanics, you dont know quantum mechanics"... I think its all a pony show and everyone is just making logical assumptions, I mean how many times are they going to say.... "GEEE?!, we didnt think that was possible !!?"

Originally posted by R3KR
I mean how many times are they going to say.... "GEEE?!, we didnt think that was possible !!?"

edit on 18-3-2011 by R3KR because: (no reason given)

They will continue to do so until you prevent them from looting you to fund their salaries.

They have no incentive to actually solve any problems or provide you with factual information.

If they did their job and solved all the problems, there would literally be nothing left for them to do.

They would have to get real jobs.

I'm not joking either.

reply to post by mnemeth1


It also bugs me precipitously that PhD's and scientists shoot down anyone that has the minute chance of poking a hole in their grandiose scheme. If its not a law, it doesn't exist... isn't that backwards to their core beliefs though ?

reply to post by mnemeth1


IRS agent ? Astrophyscisist ? You must have had a bad day.

I thought ther was kind of an easy electric magnetic answer, but who am I.
My understanding of a black hole is that the mass of a collapsing star is to big for t to fit in the spot needed for it's massive presence and rips the universe a new one. A whole in the fabrique of space itself.

Without a boundary I would think that it curves space so much it actuall starts to circle around it self and becoming a boundary free anomoly existing outside of space in space.

Or.. it doesn't rip a whole in space at all but simply fills the void it has left in the infinite dimensions where it existed infinitely in an infinite universe and becomes nothing more then a point in space where all other or some of the dimensions overlap at one place in space and time. Untill it vaporates or something.

I'm still leaning to an electro magnetic interpertation actually.

Ironically this guy is honored for being the one that pointed out the most problems. Cause I always thought science was a place to rule out the most possibilities. Yet with this the balance is off.

reply to post by Sinter Klaas


That's basically his point.

Black holes don't exist.

I also believe black holes are impossible. based off my research of associated matter.

“After all, to get the whole universe totally wrong in the face of clear evidence for over 75 years merits monumental embarrassment and should induce a modicum of humility.”

Halton Arp.

You'd think so, except most astrophysicists only laugh in the face of such a ludicrous claim, Santa does exist!
He just has to!

Originally posted by mnemeth1
They will continue to do so until you prevent them from looting you to fund their salaries.

They have no incentive to actually solve any problems or provide you with factual information.

If they did their job and solved all the problems, there would literally be nothing left for them to do.

They would have to get real jobs.

I'm not joking either.

You may not be joking, but from my perspective you are being astoundingly arrogant. Dismissing all practising astrophysicists as just wanting to keep their salaries is absurd. Discovering that common beliefs had been wrong for decades would not only increase a researchers salary, it would guarantee their name would be remembered for centuries to come.

If you think that job security is a reason that a scientist won't produce the solution to a task, you simply must never have met one, which would be consistent with the rest of your posts. However, I am not an expert on astrophysics, the logic of the paper linked left me far behind, so I have a simple question for you.

How would you explain the gigantic mass requirements implied by these measurements: adsabs.harvard.edu...

reply to post by exponent


sure

knol.google.com...#

read the galaxy formation sections and the sections pertaining to star formation.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by exponent

 

sure
knol.google.com...#
read the galaxy formation sections and the sections pertaining to star formation.

I asked for your answer, not an extremely long opinion piece based off the work of people you consider to be untrustworthy.

reply to post by exponent


If the assumption is made that the primary driver of galactic formation and rotation is a current pinch, then the assumptions of gravity acting as the only force on stars in the center of the milky way is wrong.

The mass requirements go out the window because our notions of stellar mass are wrong.

reply to post by mnemeth1

Stephen Crothers is not a scientist. He is just a failed Ph.D student with a grudge. Proof

Originally posted by mnemeth1
If the assumption is made that the primary driver of galactic formation and rotation is a current pinch, then the assumptions of gravity acting as the only force on stars in the center of the milky way is wrong.

The mass requirements go out the window because our notions of stellar mass are wrong.

Mass requirements do not go out of the window unless F=ma is also substantively false. Radial accelerations are extremely high, and so the required force is also extremely high.

How do you propose this is rectified? Do you have any facts or figures showing that sufficient material could electromagnetically affect stars at this level?

Feel free to use high estimates for metal content of stars, or excessive charge etc. I don't mind liberal models, I would just like to see some information that is not shrouded in astrophysicist hate.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated Hilbert’s derivation of the field equations is incorrect. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity. Further, Schwarzschild’s original paper that proposed the solution to the Mercury orbit problem, from which the black hole is supposedly derived, is regular in all of space-time. This absolutely refutes the notion of black holes. Schwarzschild’s original paper in English can be found here. Hilbert’s solution to the field equations is erroneous.

Crothers undertook a long dialog with a Dr. Christian Corda, Editor-in-Chief of The Open Astronomy Journal, who freely admits that there is no such thing as black holes, but then refuses publication of Crothers' papers based on ideological disagreements.

It is interesting to note that black hole “non-believers” include Einstein and Schwarzschild, yet their names are continually put forth as backers of this theory. Out of respect for their positions, the use of Einstein’s and Schwarzschild’s names in conjunction with these objects should cease immediately.

Some choice quotes from the dialog:

Again Steve, I suggest you change your way of proceed. I think that you are surely a talented researcher within gravitational physics, I agree with you that black-holes do not exist, but nobody will follow you if you insist to claim that not only the present community of gravitational physicists, but also the same Einstein, Schwarzschild, Hilbert, etc., i,e. the Founders Fathers of General Relativity, were wrong and the only correct person is Steve Crothers. in particular, be sure that I will NEVER follow you.

To summarize the dialog, Crothers pointed out that the equation scientists use in their formulation of black holes is wrong because it doesn't actually give a boundary condition for the supposed edge of a black hole.

No boundary = no black hole.

The equation physicists use to describe the boundary of a black hole is totally arbitrary and is an artifact of a bad equation first formulated by one David Hilbert.

Crothers personal saga to see this error of physics corrected has led him into some absolutely insane confrontations. It is worth clicking his name to read all about it.


Watch Crothers explain the madness here:

edit on 17-3-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)

Dear mnemeth1, dears readers,

it is not correct that I refused publication of Mr. Crothers' papers based on ideological disagreements. I refused publication of Mr. Crothers' papers because I am absolutely sure that such papers are totally wrong from both of the physical and mathematical points of view.
I showed correct physical and mathematical arguments on the potential non-existence of black holes, and, in general, of singularities, see my papers Mod. Phys. Lett. A2, 2423-2429 (2010) and Astropart. Phys. 3, 587-590 (2011). Such arguments have nothing to do with Mr. Crothers' unscientific and totally wrong claims.
On the contrary, I think that the confusion realized by Mr. Crothers and friends is favourable to people who claim on the existence of black holes and of singularities. In my paper arXiv:1010.6031, accepted for publication in Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, I have shown that Mr. Crothers' argumentation on the fact that Schwarzschild’s original paper refutes the notion of black holes is totally wrong.
There is not a conspiracy of the Scientific Community against Mr. Crothers, merely Mr. Crothers does not understand Differential Geometry and General Relativity.
Even if it is correct that Einstein was a black hole “non-believer” it is false that Schwarzschild was a black hole “non-believer” too. Unfortunately, Schwarzschild died some months after finding his solution to Einstein Field Equation, while the concept of "frozen star" (the term black hole was introduced only in 1964 and was due by A. Ewing in a letter to the American Association for the Advancement of Science) was introduced about 15 years after. On the other hand, Einstein's argumentations on the non-existence of black holes had nothing to do with Mr. Crothers' unscientific and totally wrong argumentations.
Notice also that Mr. Crothers has been very incorrect as he put in the web our private conversation without my permission.

Christian Corda