Understanding the universe.

[SJCrothers 10]

Cui Bono though - look whose selling impossible free energy meachines off of his "research"

 

I reiterate that your remarks attest that you know nothing of my work. Consequently, you are not in a position to criticise my work or to proclaim wholesale that the mathematical theory of black holes is valid. If you must, at all costs, save the black hole from oblivion, by attempting to refute my arguments, then you had better actually address my arguments, not arguments you falsely assign to me, and you had better not ignore my arguments. Ignoring mathematical or scientific arguments is not in fact a scientific method, particularly if you want to prove your unsubstantiated charge on this forum that I don't know mathematics. Substantiate your charge by presenting your evidence. As I also remarked in my previous posting, none of my adversaries have ever addressed the arguments I have adduced in my papers and videos, relying instead upon some kind of telepathic means to know my work without studying or understanding it. You are clearly no exception. But telepathy is not permitted in discourse concerning the mathematical theory of black holes.

 

You have not been paying attention. I have already posted here the facts concerning Einstein's contradictory assertion that material sources can be both present and absent by means of the very same mathematical constraint for material sources in his field equations. Also, as I have already posted to this site, it is not possible for me to post URLs to citations until after I have successfully posted five separate comments, because that is a condition imposed by the Administrators of this site, and thereby beyond my control.

 

Appealing to a rationalwiki webpage that is bereft of science, consisting of nothing but malicious vitriol and derision, is not only unscientific, but also childish. And as for ‘free energy maechines (sic) off of his “research”’ that is yet another false charge. Neither I nor anybody I know of has used my scientific work for purposes of ‘free energy’. Since this is another unsubstantiated charge, present your evidence for it.

 

Now that I have satisfied the prerequisite number of postings for the inclusion of URLs, here is a series of short and simple articles that address most of the salient facts with little or no mathematics, as the case may be:

 

(1) Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense,

 

(2) Crothers, S. J., A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study,

(3) Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Mathematical Physicist is Talking Nonsense: the Black Hole - a Case Study,

 

(4) Crothers, S. J., Black Hole Escape Velocity - a Case Study in the Decay of Physics and Astronomy,

 

(5) Crothers, S. J., To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass,

 

That proponents of the mathematical theory of black holes do not understand that their mathematical theory requires, for instance, that the square of a real number must take on values less than zero, thereby violating the rules of pure mathematics, does not permit them to violate the rules of pure mathematics and thereby produce a black hole. Ignorance of violations of the rules of pure mathematics is no excuse. It is by such ignorance of violations of the rules of pure mathematics that the black hole was conjured. In any event, the violations of the rules of pure mathematics that produce the black hole prove that the black hole is false.

 

Here is an example of cosmologists at the Max Planck Institute admitting that they have never found a black hole at Sgt A* and that nobody has ever found a black hole anywhere:

 

The Gillessen Dialogues

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 23:34 ----------

 

On this month's Sky at Night they were saying that the recent observation of gravitational waves does provide direct evidence for the existence of black holes. Specifically for the merger of two black holes about 1.3 billion years ago. Apparently if (per impossibile) the energy released had been in the form of electromagnetic radiation, it would have been brighter than all the stars in the known universe put together!

 

 

Yes, such are the reports, but they are nonetheless false, as I have explained here:

 

Crothers, S.J., A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIGO'S RECENT DETECTION OF GRAVITATIONAL WAVES CAUSED BY MERGING BLACK HOLES, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016,

Edited April 17, 2016 by SJCrothers
url corrections

[Obelix 11]

I reiterate that your remarks attest that you know nothing of my work.

 

I've snipped the rest because it doenst add anything useful.

 

Can you answer the questions I have posed twice now? Specifically rather than just saying "it's not possible for a black hole to exist" could you say why, and provide evidence.

 

I'd also point out at no time have I appealed to rationalwiki to support my arguments so you can withdraw that slur please.

[SJCrothers 10]

You're kidding.

Does he also sell magic water by any chance?

 

It is plain, by your remarks, that you are not actually inclined to scientific discourse at all. Consequently, I see no point in responding to any further comments you make. Your childish behaviour serves only itself.

 

If anybody on this forum is interested in scientific discussion of black holes, big bangs, gravitational waves, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and my proofs of their falsity, I will be happy to engage. All persons who resort to derision or citation of 'sources' such as 'rationalwiki' instead of scientific argument I will pay no heed.

[PeteMorris 10]

SJ Crothers Unfortunately none of the above links appear to work! ...Apart from the last one!

Edited April 15, 2016 by PeteMorris

[Obelix 11]

And as for ‘free energy maechines (sic) off of his “research”’ that is yet another false charge. Neither I nor anybody I know of has used my scientific work for purposes of ‘free energy’.

 

Cobblers.

 

Your book - co authored with Myron Evans...

 

http://www.amazon.com/Criticisms-Einstein-Field-Equation-Century/dp/1907343288/ref=sr_1_16?ie=UTF8&qid=1419450862&sr=8-16&keywords=Myron+Evans

 

The wonderfully eclectic site here builds overunity machines - "free" energy...

 

http://www.cheniere.org/megstatus.htm

 

and whose writing the manual?

 

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/030203a.htm

 

and in the references - your co authors work based on yours....

 

Oh dear....

[petemcewan 27]

Mr PM,

 

I think SJC papers and videos can be found here.http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/papers.html

[tzijlstra 11]

Obelix,

 

I'm well aware of the need for peer review. It's one of the cornerstones of lending validity to scientific work.

 

If you ever get the time, you may find it interesting reading, Thomas .S. Kuhn's, The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions. It's a classic work in understanding how sciences is conducted and how knowledge is acquired and sometimes rejected.

 

I think it is still in print.

 

Brilliant book that would add so much to anybody that can be bothered to read it.

[SJCrothers 10]

I've snipped the rest because it doenst add anything useful.

 

Can you answer the questions I have posed twice now? Specifically rather than just saying "it's not possible for a black hole to exist" could you say why, and provide evidence.

 

I'd also point out at no time have I appealed to rationalwiki to support my arguments so you can withdraw that slur please.

 

Originally Posted by flamingjimmy

Wow this guy's got his own rationalwiki article!

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers

 

 

Originally Posted by Obelix

That surprises you?

 

I've been poking around it for a while - theres a lot of heat and smoke but very little in the way of revealing light.

 

Thus, your slur and rationalwiki reference remains. It is clear that you not in fact interested in scientific discourse. Since you have 'snipped' from my previous reply to you, claiming that it adds “nothing useful”, it is plain that you are not prepared to actually address my arguments at all, unwilling to read any of my papers cited and linked in evidence in which the answers to your questions are located, assigning instead, as you have already done, arguments to me that I have never made, using a kind of telepathy to argue your case against me. Your citation of the book to which I contributed a chapter on General Relativity is irrelevant. You have not produced any evidence from it that my work has been used for ‘free energy’; because there is none. You have disqualified yourself from further consideration and so I will not waste any more time on you.

 

Any other person on this forum who is truly interested in scientific discussion is welcome to ask me questions about my proofs that black holes, big bangs, Einstein's gravitational waves, and General Relativity, are false. I have provided some references in previous posts to form the basis of such discussions. Interested persons are requested to study them before posing questions.

 

Here are two recent papers that are mathematically detailed, for those of mathematically inclination:

 

(1) Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO's Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016,

 

(2) Crothers, S.J., On Corda's 'Clarification' of Schwarzschild's Solution, Hadronic Journal, Vol. 39, 2016,

 

Also at:

 

http://principia-scientific.org/cordas-clarification-schwarzschilds-solution/

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2016 at 01:06 ----------

 

I wonder what Mr Crothers' take on anthropogenic climate change is?

 

As one respondent here says, "There may be occasions where one man is right and everyone else is wrong (Galileo?), but I don't think this is one of those occasions ... On the one hand you have Stephen Crothers saying black holes don't exist. On the other hand you have every other physicist since 1916 saying they do ... [The only argument one] could make to a layman comes down to saying that history suggests the majority are right most of the time."

 

As a layman, I'm comfortable with that.

 

Yet being a layman is not an exemption from thinking. All you have to do is think about the subject matter instead of relying upon Authority. Anybody who argues by Authority is not using his brains, only his memory. Here are the salient arguments in layman's terms:

 

(1) Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

 

(2) Crothers, S. J., A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0130v1.pdf

 

(3) Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Mathematical Physicist is Talking Nonsense: the Black Hole - a Case Study,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0007v1.pdf

 

(4) Crothers, S. J., Black Hole Escape Velocity - a Case Study in the Decay of Physics and Astronomy,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0066v1.pdf

 

(5) Crothers, S. J., To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass, http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0106v1.pdf

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2016 at 01:09 ----------

 

SJ Crothers Unfortunately none of the above links appear to work! ...Apart from the last one!

 

Dear Mr. Morris,

 

I checked the links. They are working for me. Here is a shortcut to all my papers:

 

http://vixra.org/author/stephen_j_crothers

 

Perhaps this will work for you.

 

Steve Crothers

 

---------- Post added 16-04-2016 at 01:10 ----------

 

Progress in science is facilitated by competing paradigms( Thomas Kuhn, Structure Of Scientific Revolutions).

 

"Home Astronomy & Space Astronomy September 24, 2014

Researcher shows that black holes do not exist

September 24, 2014 by Thania Benios

black hole

This artist's concept depicts a supermassive black hole at the center of a galaxy. The blue color here represents radiation pouring out from material very close to the black hole. The grayish structure surrounding the black hole, called a …more

Black holes have long captured the public imagination and been the subject of popular culture, from Star Trek to Hollywood. They are the ultimate unknown – the blackest and most dense objects in the universe that do not even let light escape. And as if they weren't bizarre enough to begin with, now add this to the mix: they don't exist.

 

By merging two seemingly conflicting theories, Laura Mersini-Houghton, a physics professor at UNC-Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Sciences, has proven, mathematically, that black holes can never come into being in the first place. The work not only forces scientists to reimagine the fabric of space-time, but also rethink the origins of the universe.

"I'm still not over the shock," said Mersini-Houghton. "We've been studying this problem for a more than 50 years and this solution gives us a lot to think about."

For decades, black holes were thought to form when a massive star collapses under its own gravity to a single point in space – imagine the Earth being squished into a ball the size of a peanut – called a singularity. So the story went, an invisible membrane known as the event horizon surrounds the singularity and crossing this horizon means that you could never cross back. It's the point where a black hole's gravitational pull is so strong that nothing can escape it.

The reason black holes are so bizarre is that it pits two fundamental theories of the universe against each other. Einstein's theory of gravity predicts the formation of black holes but a fundamental law of quantum theory states that no information from the universe can ever disappear. Efforts to combine these two theories lead to mathematical nonsense, and became known as the information loss paradox.

In 1974, Stephen Hawking used quantum mechanics to show that black holes emit radiation. Since then, scientists have detected fingerprints in the cosmos that are consistent with this radiation, identifying an ever-increasing list of the universe's black holes.

But now Mersini-Houghton describes an entirely new scenario. She and Hawking both agree that as a star collapses under its own gravity, it produces Hawking radiation. However, in her new work, Mersini-Houghton shows that by giving off this radiation, the star also sheds mass. So much so that as it shrinks it no longer has the density to become a black hole.

Before a black hole can form, the dying star swells one last time and then explodes. A singularity never forms and neither does an event horizon. The take home message of her work is clear: there is no such thing as a black hole.

The paper, which was recently submitted to ArXiv, an online repository of physics papers that is not peer-reviewed, offers exact numerical solutions to this problem and was done in collaboration with Harald Peiffer, an expert on numerical relativity at the University of Toronto. An earlier paper, by Mersini-Houghton, originally submitted to ArXiv in June, was published in the journal Physics Letters B, and offers approximate solutions to the problem.

Experimental evidence may one day provide physical proof as to whether or not black holes exist in the universe. But for now, Mersini-Houghton says the mathematics are conclusive.

Many physicists and astronomers believe that our universe originated from a singularity that began expanding with the Big Bang. However, if singularities do not exist, then physicists have to rethink their ideas of the Big Bang and whether it ever happened.

"Physicists have been trying to merge these two theories – Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum mechanics – for decades, but this scenario brings these two theories together, into harmony," said Mersini-Houghton. "And that's a big deal."

Explore further: Theorists apply loop quantum gravity theory to black hole

More information: Mersini-Houghton's ArXiv papers:

— Approximate solutions:arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1406.1525

— Exact solutions:arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1409.1837

Journal reference: arXiv Physics Letters B

Provided by: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill ".

The above needs to be peer reviewed.

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2014-09-black-holes.html#jCp ".

 

So, SJC is not alone in this field.

 

The above illustrates for me how scientists pit themselves against existing

scientific work. As T Kuhn pointed out decades ago. That if science is to lead to new discoveries;there has to be room for competing paradigms.

It's not just in cosmology, that there is a need for competing viewpoints.

Rupert Sheldrake's work has set the cat amongst the pigeons; in the field of biology .

 

Although Mersini-Houghton gets the right answer (black holes do not exist) she does so for all the wrong reasons. Quantum mechanics has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Edited April 15, 2016 by SJCrothers

[unbeliever 10]

Mr Crothers,

 

You're still not answering Obelix's questions.

 

Are you not able to give the answers without inviting the forum to read everything you've ever "published"?

 

Have you considered that perhaps in the light of all the experimental evidence supporting the existence of black holes that you might have made a mistake and perhaps you're not the only sane man in the Universe.

I'm an experimentalist by trade. I tend to think that when theorists argue against observed reality they're on to a loser.

Edited April 15, 2016 by unbeliever

[Annie Bynnol 612]

I am very interested in the science of black holes, big bangs, gravitational waves, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, etc., and because it is not my specialism I select my sources so as to avoid crap.

 

It is as easy to tell if its crap as they will have many of the following attributes:

... the authors are so desperate for an audience, they use forums that are not known to the scientific world- like this one.

... they preach.

... get techy when challenged and become personal.

... when challenged continually move on to a succession of unrelated crap

... refer to themselves a lot.

... resort to "their" theory on "their" website or they cross reference with other crapists.

... use a vocabulary and style reminiscent of Radio Moscow in the 70s.

... seem to have the need for a following.

... a truly uninspiring background of research and publication history.

... eventually go way never to be heard of again.

 

The deterrent apparently is to "... resort to derision or citation of 'sources' such as 'rationalwiki'... ".

 

It pleases me that you won't be responding.

 

Crap in my opinion is an acronym for Conspiracy Related Anti-established Pseudoscience. Any improvements welcome.

[Obelix 11]

it is plain that you are not prepared to actually address my arguments at all

 

I've not addressed them because I haven't seen them - despite asking many times.

 

You have made statements. Bereft of proof they are easily dismissed.

I have made logical arguments, with supporting evidence. Bereft of refutation - they still stand.

 

If you provide an argument, cogently organised, I will read it. If all you are going to do is give me a huge pile of papers and expect me to read all of them and guess where you are making the argument, I've got other things to do I'm afraid.

 

So I'll ask again - have you any arguments to make? If it will be easier to email them I'll send you an address and you can sned exterpts. I can cope with TeX/LaTeX documents and most of the other formats if needed. I'll summarise the responses etc for the group.

 

---------- Post added 15-04-2016 at 17:24 ----------

 

Obelix,

 

I'm well aware of the need for peer review. It's one of the cornerstones of lending validity to scientific work.

 

If you ever get the time, you may find it interesting reading, Thomas .S. Kuhn's, The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions. It's a classic work in understanding how sciences is conducted and how knowledge is acquired and sometimes rejected.

 

I think it is still in print.

 

I wasn't saying you were unaware of it - just that on such sites you can have papers uploaded that have never undergone peer review - never will - and apparently look like proper papers. They are of course, complete claptrap of the highest order.

[petemcewan 27]

Mr P Morris. This is not me trying to show off. But it must be done. Tying SJC in to Free Energy is a joke. The following is technical but it can't be helped . Free energy is a concept not embraced by electrical engineers. There has been work looking into how to improve the magnetic/electromagnetic circuits of electrical motors , alternators and DC generators. The work is about reducing ," Copper Losses " and "Iron Losses" in electrical machines and improving the strength of the magnetic fields without having to take more power from the supply. It's nothing to do with perpetual motion . It's sound engineering research.

 

Tying S.J Crothers into Free Energy is mischievious.

 

" Stephen Crothers, whose careful scholarship has unearthed some amazing mistakes repeated in perpetuity".