General Relativity challenged

[RobertJS]

In my opinion, whenever we start to talk about a controversial subject, it is important to define terms and be on the same page as to the fundamentals. This creates a stable and firm foundation to build upon. I see that with the Einstein stuff there is "spacetime", but nobody seems to have firstly defined "space" fundamentally. I have gone to the recommended site that Crothers has available, but with all the talk of ease & simplicity, it does not define "space". I think for this reason it is bound to throw everything out of whack. Just the idea of including "infinity" in the thought-process is bound to throw things off. I have addressed the issue of space in this thread...

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=4059.0

We can save a heck of a lot of time starting out knowing that space is not infinitely indivisible! It's the idea of infinity that has made the mathematicians stray into fantasies of extremes that are impossible.

[Stephen J. Crothers]

Let's summarise concisely:

(1) Einstein and his followers claim that energy-momentum tensor = 0 both includes and precludes the presence of material sources, in other words they claim that material sources = 0 both includes and precludes the presence of material sources. This is impossible. When material sources = 0 there are no material sources present. All black hole universes rely upon the alleged black hole for energy-momentum tensor = 0, so the idea of the black hole is fallacious.

(2) The black hole is alleged to both have and not to have an escape velocity simultaneously. That is impossible.

RobertJS has raised some important issues. However, I have not defined 'space' because I am addressing the claims made by Einstein and his followers, and they have already defined their 4-dimensional spacetime continuum. I merely work with it and show that claims for black holes in this continuum are entirely fallacious. We can consider the issue of 'space' and 'spacetime' later. As I mentioned previously, it is best to go one step at a time so that things can be understood. There is no point in going on before that which we are currently considering has not been comprehended. That will only lead to more confusion, and there is already enough of that due to Einstein and his followers.

Concerning infinities, I have actually addressed the issue in a number of my papers, but for our discussions it too can wait until the time is ready for looking at it.

If you have any questions please present them for discussion. Don't worry if you think your questions are not 'intelligent'. They are intelligent. Remember, we are trying to understand something which has been clouded in mystery for more or less 100 years, and dressed up in complicated mathematics so that the simple facts are buried in the abstruse, hiding them from all and sundry. If there is anything you have not understood in my exposition so far, please let me know, so that we can fill in any gaps.

Stephen J. Crothers

[RobertJS]

I look at it this way: when man wants to prove guilt or innocence in a crime, it is natural and logical to immediately present the "alibi". To put that off in favor of spending time on what other evidence there is, is a waste of time. I find that I don't want to waste my time looking at any formulas at all. The fundamentals are at the root.

[ts aquinas]

Let's summarise concisely:

(1) Einstein and his followers claim that energy-momentum tensor = 0 both includes and precludes the presence of material sources, in other words they claim that material sources = 0 both includes and precludes the presence of material sources. This is impossible. When material sources = 0 there are no material sources present. All black hole universes rely upon the alleged black hole for energy-momentum tensor = 0, so the idea of the black hole is fallacious.

(2) The black hole is alleged to both have and not to have an escape velocity simultaneously. That is impossible.

RobertJS has raised some important issues. However, I have not defined 'space' because I am addressing the claims made by Einstein and his followers, and they have already defined their 4-dimensional spacetime continuum. I merely work with it and show that claims for black holes in this continuum are entirely fallacious. We can consider the issue of 'space' and 'spacetime' later. As I mentioned previously, it is best to go one step at a time so that things can be understood. There is no point in going on before that which we are currently considering has not been comprehended. That will only lead to more confusion, and there is already enough of that due to Einstein and his followers.

Concerning infinities, I have actually addressed the issue in a number of my papers, but for our discussions it too can wait until the time is ready for looking at it.

If you have any questions please present them for discussion. Don't worry if you think your questions are not 'intelligent'. They are intelligent. Remember, we are trying to understand something which has been clouded in mystery for more or less 100 years, and dressed up in complicated mathematics so that the simple facts are buried in the abstruse, hiding them from all and sundry. If there is anything you have not understood in my exposition so far, please let me know, so that we can fill in any gaps.

Stephen J. Crothers

Question then. Does this open the door to other theories that might speculate origin, if not at least explain expansion? I know your colleagues at the Electric Universe are entertaining ideas such as the 'big spark' if I'm not mistaken. Do you see the observation of expansion an obstacle or does the present understanding of redshift need to go back to the drawing board? I think  Mr. Thornhill demonstrated that at one time (the errors of present understanding of redshift.)

[Maximilian]

I find that I don't want to waste my time looking at any formulas at all.

I completely disagree. What I like about Mr. Crothers' presentation is the way that explains the relevance of the equations. A scientific theory -- any scientific theory -- is all about the equations. Either they work or they don't work. Same with Newton as with Einstein. The words are just an explanation. The theory IS the equations.

Newton's second law is F = ma. Any additional words or theories are just explanations. Either F = ma works or it doesn't work.

This basic fact seems to have been buried in the discussion of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I've never before seen any of the equations presented. At least we are given E = mc^2 for his Special Relativity. (Which appears to be just a restating of Newton's second law, although Einstein does draw out some new implications.)

[RobertJS]

I find that I don't want to waste my time looking at any formulas at all.

I completely disagree. What I like about Mr. Crothers' presentation is the way that explains the relevance of the equations. A scientific theory -- any scientific theory -- is all about the equations. Either they work or they don't work. Same with Newton as with Einstein. The words are just an explanation. The theory IS the equations.

Newton's second law is F = ma. Any additional words or theories are just explanations. Either F = ma works or it doesn't work.

This basic fact seems to have been buried in the discussion of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. I've never before seen any of the equations presented. At least we are given E = mc^2 for his Special Relativity. (Which appears to be just a restating of Newton's second law, although Einstein does draw out some new implications.)

You really shouldn't take a sentence of mine out of context and then say you disagree with that sentence. In context, I am saying fundamentals should be looked at first, because they are the basis of the formulas.

[Stephen J. Crothers]

RobertJS « Reply #122 on: November 29, 2013, 12:48:09 PM » has missed the point entirely. The issue of Ric = 0 is fundamental. It is from this set of equations that the alleged black hole was conjured: the so-called "Schwarzschild" black hole. All other alleged black holes depend on this alleged black hole. Since Ric = 0 has no physical meaning whatsoever, all that is obtained from it is also physically meaningless. I have revealed to you the nature of these equations without having to do any calculations. Looking at equations and identifying parts is very simple. As I said at the outset, nobody needs to know anything about metric spaces, differential geometry, tensor calculus, or even what a tensor is. The assertion "I find that I don't want to waste my time looking at any formulas at all." is unscientific, especially since nobody is required to do any calculations. The detractors of Galileo did the same thing when they refused to look through his telescope.

The meaningless of Ric = 0 alone completely refutes all claims for black holes. It really is that simple.

Maximilian « on: November 29, 2013, 02:27:05 PM » is correct. General Relativity is mathematical physics and so mathematics can't be completely ignored. But it can be clarified and minimised, as I have done on this forum. He is also right in that the equations of some mathematical physics, if inconsistent mathematically or if divorced form physical meaning, have no relevance. This is the case with Ric = 0, and so the black hole is fallacious.

ts aquinas Reply #123 on: November 29, 2013, 01:02:41 PM » has now raised some important questions. The short answer is that the big bang theory is just as fallacious as is the black hole theory. Consequently, the expansion of the Universe associated with it is false. The interpretation of the red-shift as a recessional velocity relation is false.

But before we can consider the big bang fallacy in detail, we must begin with some fundamental issues once again. The best place to begin our discussion is with definitions. These are not my definitions. They are the definitions given by the proponents of black holes and big bangs. However, they have to be extracted from their verbose and obscure writings. By consolidating them, things immediately begin to fall into place.

All alleged black hole universes:
(1) are spatially infinite
(2) are eternal (i.e. they have no beginning and no end - they ARE NOT non-static)
(3) contain only one mass
(4) are NOT expanding
(5) are either asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved.

The alleged big bang universes:
(1) are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two cases)
(2) are of finite age (i.e. they have a beginning - they ARE non-static)
(3) contain radiation and many masses, (including multiple black holes, some of which are primordial)
(4) ARE expanding
(5) are not asymptotically anything.

The defining features of the black hole universes clearly contradict the defining features of the big bang universes. Consequently the black hole universes and the big bang universes are mutually exclusive – they cannot coexist. No mathematics is required to see this because it is a matter of elementary logic.

How many types of alleged black hole universes are there? Four! How many types of big bang universes are there? Three! When proponents of the black hole and big bang talk of black holes and big bangs they never tell anyone which type of black holes in which type of big bang they allege. The simple and fundamental reason for this is that they don't even realise that their black hole universes and big bang universes are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive.

Since we now know that the black hole universes are all fallacious owing to the invalidity of Ric = 0, there cannot be black holes anywhere. The next issue is the big bang universes. With the above contradictions we immediately suspect that they too are fallacious. We shall later move on to the proof of that, again in very simple terms that require no calculations. We will again look at some equations. but that is a very simple affair.

Before we go there though, do you have any questions?

Stephen J. Crothers

[james03]

Yes, one question.  When people assert that there are black holes in a big bang universe, could they mistakenly be referring to a dark body instead?

One more question, probably answered later.  What is your opinion about an expanding "geometry"?

[Stephen J. Crothers]

Yes, one question.  When people assert that there are black holes in a big bang universe, could they mistakenly be referring to a dark body instead?

One more question, probably answered later.  What is your opinion about an expanding "geometry"?

Dear james03,

Certainly there are no black holes, and the definitions of black hole universes and big bang universes make them mutually exclusive anyway. So all claims for black holes in multitudes, and in some big bang universe, are fallacious.

The theoretical Michell-Laplace dark body is consistent with Newton's theory. I don't know if such a thing exists though. Nobody knows. Nobody has ever observed a star 'collapse' under its own gravitation. 'Gravitational collapse' of a star or galaxy is and has always been nothing but an idea. I propose no theory myself nor do I venture any hypotheses. All my work consists of revealing the inconsistencies in General Relativity, the falsehood of black holes and big bangs. I leave it to others to look for some rational explanation.

The big bang expanding universe is an alleged expansion of spacetime. In that sense, it is an expanding 'geometry'. However, spacetime, invented by Minkowski and quickly adopted by Einstein and his followers, is not the fabric of the world in which we dwell. I will discuss this later when we consider the big bang universes in detail. To do it now would jump the gun. For everybody to follow all the arguments we must proceed a step at a time.

Stephen J. Crothers

[RobertJS]

Stephen, I'm sorry, but you are making this confusing. You say "Ric=0" is simple, yet a google search shows nothing but your own site. And, despite how easy you say it is without formulas, that page on your site dedicated to it, feels the need to list a bunch formulas that no average person will understand.

When I had mentioned getting down to fundamentals first, you respond to say that I "missed the point entirely", then almost immediately you say to TSA that we need to get down to fundamentals first!

To add to the confusion, you decided to use definitions that you already know are wrong, when you should really be attacking the wrong definitions first. That is the more fundamental and time-saving route.

[Maximilian]

Stephen, I'm sorry, but you are making this confusing.

Perhaps you could point us to other examples where someone else has made General Relativity simpler and easier to understand.

You say "Ric=0" is simple, yet a google search shows nothing but your own site.

I looked that up previously, and I had no trouble finding lots of information.

Here, for example, is a discussion of the question on "Physics Forums"

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=353106

[GloriaPatri]

A response to Crother's mathematical errors: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/CrothersViews.html

And with this, I must step out gentlemen. I have physics to study.

[Stephen J. Crothers]

"You say "Ric=0" is simple, yet a google search shows nothing but your own site. And, despite how easy you say it is without formulas, that page on your site dedicated to it, feels the need to list a bunch formulas that no average person will understand."
RobertJS « Reply #129 on: December 03, 2013, 10:44:38 AM »

Dear RobertSJ, It is not necessary to delve into the more complicated mathematics on my website, as I have explained Ric= 0 above, without the need to make any calculations, since I have converted the equations to simple English language. The important point is the proof that Ric = 0 is meaningless because it contains no matter. This is because energy-momentum tensor = 0 is claimed to contain a mass (spacetime geometry = 0) and to also preclude all matter (spacetime geometry = ?(metric tensor term). This is impossible! When energy-momentum tensor = 0 there is no matter present because this is the very same as material sources = 0. This is fundamental to black hole theory, and proves black hole theory false. Also, the list of comparative definitions of alleged black hole universes and big bang universes clearly shows that they are contradictory and therefore mutually exclusive. This requires no mathematics, and not even any mathematical symbols, just elementary logic. However, I take you point regarding my website, and so I will modify it so that it is easy for everybody to understand.


"A response to Crother's mathematical errors: http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/CrothersViews.html
And with this, I must step out gentlemen. I have physics to study."
GloriaPatri « Reply #131 on: December 03, 2013, 12:41:21 PM »

This is yet another desperate unscientific intrusion and childish jibe from GloriaPatri, who has previously eliminated himself from all consideration for scientific discourse by his hostile and irrational behaviour and his failure to adduce any argument of his own design in any attempt to refute any of my arguments despite invitation to do so. As for Bruhn, for those interested, my disposal of Bruhn is here (but is it mathematical, because Bruhn laboured over mathematical technicalities):

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/BHLetters.html

One does not need to know the complicated mathematics associated with General Relativity to understand what I have posted above, on this forum.

Before I present further arguments, are there any questions? For instance, does anyone not know what is meant by asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved? Don't feel reluctant to ask, because others might not know either, and everybody needs to understand all points before I more on.

Stephen J. Crothers

[Stephen J. Crothers]

Let's now look at some additional nonsensical claims made by proponents of black holes and big bangs.

"One crucial assumption underlies the standard hot big-bang model: that the universe 'began' in a state of rapid expansion from a very nearly homogeneous, isotropic condition of infinite (or near infinite) density and pressure."
[Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., Wheeler, J. A., Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, (1973)]

Now I ask you, how close to infinite must one get to be "near infinite"?

"But is that, in fact, because of discovering that empty space has energy, it seems quite plausible that our universe may be just one universe in what could be almost an infinite number of universes and in every universe the laws of physics are different and they come into existence when the universe comes into existence."
(Krauss 2013)

I ask again, just how close to infinite must one get to attain "an almost infinite number"?

The next nonsensical claim I have already posted, but it is well worth repeating, because all proponents of the black hole don't even understand escape velocity. They all claim that their black holes have an escape velocity and don't have an escape velocity at the same time.

"A black hole is, ah, a massive object, and it's something which is so massive that light can't even escape. ... some objects are so massive that the escape speed is basically the speed of light and therefore not even light escapes. ... so black holes themselves are, are basically inert, massive and nothing escapes ..."
(Bland-Hawthorn 2013)

Note that Bland-Hawthorn asserts that the escape speed is the speed of light. Now light travels at the speed of light. Therefore if the escape speed is the speed of light, then light must escape.

REFERENCES

(1) Bland-Hawthorn, J. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-24/new-research-sheds-more-light-on-black-holes/4979088

(2) Krauss, L., Q&A, television station ABC1, Australia, (Monday, 18 February, 2013) www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3687812.htm

(3) Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., Wheeler, J. A., Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York, (1973)