


The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics 

The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics
by Stephen J. Crothers (Latest update: 6th Jan. 200
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com:80/index.html
Nachstehend zitiere ich auszugsweise hieraus:
Zitat: 
There has been a deliberate suppression of important scientific papers by the community of physicists and astronomers concerning the black hole, beginning with the original paper by Karl Schwarzschild of 1916, evidently for vainglory, money and selfaggrandisement. I bring you free access to those papers, and others of relevance, in the hope that this fraud can be exposed and physics restored to a rational search for knowledge. The black hole has no foundation in theory whatsoever. Neither Newton's theory nor Einstein's theory predict it. In fact, both theories preclude it, contrary to what the orthodox relativists claim.
The socalled "Schwarzschild" solution is not due to Karl Schwarzschild at all. The experts have either not read Schwarzschild's 1916 memoir or have otherwise ignored it. Go here to get Schwarzschild's original paper, in English. The socalled "Schwarzschild" solution is due to David Hilbert, itself a corruption of a solution first derived by Johannes Droste in May 1916, whose paper has also been buried or ignored at the convenience of the experts. It appears that the experts have not read Hilbert either. Go here to get a copy of Hilbert's erroneous derivation, in English. Hilbert's mistake spawned the black hole and the community of theoretical physicists continues to elaborate on this falsehood, with a hostile shouting down of any and all voices challenging them. Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole, and neither does Droste's solution. Schwarzschild's paper is a piece of flawless mathematical physics, but Hilbert's is a poor show. And while you're at it you might as well go here to get a copy of Marcel Brillouin's 1923 paper, in English, in which he gives another valid solution and also simply and dramatically demonstrates that the black hole is nonsense. Brillouin's paper has also been ignored.
The experts are always quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black hole as a crackpot. Unfortunately for the experts that does not alter the facts. The experts must also include Schwarzschild himself as a crank since his paper invalidates the black hole outright, as does Brillouin's, and Droste's. They must also label Einstein a crackpot, because Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, claiming in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in the field nullify the theory of General Relativity.
It is also commonly held by experts, for example, Hawking and Ellis, Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, S. Chandrasekhar, that the MichellLaplace dark body is a kind of black hole, or an anticipation of the black hole, and that black holes can be members of binary systems and that black holes can collide. These claims are patently false. Go here for a copy of G. C. McVittie's conclusive arguments which invalidate these ridiculous claims. So if you are a scientific man you will read Schwarzschild's paper, and those of Droste, Hilbert, and Brillouin. You have no legitimate excuse not to, as they are given to you herein. This is not a question of historical priority, as the orthodox relativist is apt to claim when confronted with reality, but one of fundamental science.
It is also claimed by the very same "experts" that General Relativity predicts that the Universe is expanding. This is patently false. The mathematically rigorous proof that these "solutions" are nonsense is given below.
Also listed below are my own research papers in which I derive, on the standard manifold with boundary, the general solution to Einstein's field equations for the static, vacuum field of the pointmass in all its configurations, confirming Schwarzschild's solution, Droste's solution, and Brillouin's solution as particular cases, and that black holes are not consistent with General Relativity, as so well noted by Schwarzschild, Brillouin, and Droste, contrary to common contemporary expert opinion. The pointmass is itself a fictitious object and is to be rightly considered as the centre of mass of an extended body.
Here are some important papers that deal with the Black Hole and the Big Bang. They prove that these theories are not consistent with General Relativity and have no basis in theory whatsoever.
(Zitatende) 
Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:
The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com:80/index.html
Diese Arbeit enth?lt zahlreiche weiterf?hrende LINKS.
Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe


05.04.2008 08:36 


Re: The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics 

Ekkehard Friebe schrieb am 05.04.2008 um 08:36 Uhr:
Heute bringe ich nun einen Brief von Prof. Joseph J. Smulsky (siehe hierzu:
http://www.ekkehardfriebe.de/friebeforum/thread.php?threadid=333&startid=1#p57298497931887655 )
an Stephen J. Crothers vom 6. Dezember 2007, der zu der oben genannten Arbeit von Crothers Stellung nimmt, siehe:
http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Papers/Crother09a.pdf
Zitat: 
Letter to Crothers 9. December 6, 2007
Dear Stephen J. Crothers,
www.geocities.com/theometria/index.html
I have got acquainted with the materials sent by you: 1) Ricc = 0 viofates Einstein's Principle of Equivalence; 2) A very recent report (21/11/2007) "Mankind 'shortening the uxiiverse's life'" by Roger Highfield, Science Editor and 3) With your paper "On Certain Conceptual Anomalies in Einstein's Theory of .Relativity".
In this paper you adduce examples of six erroneous representations of the General Theory of Relativity. In Email of 25 November you have written about your paper, that it will utterly destroy a large proportion of the relativist scribblings. I see, that it is so, and I am glad with you. Earlier you fought with Black holes and the Big Bang, considering they contradict the General Theory of Relativity. Now you speak, that the General Theory of Relativity is erroneous. It is very good!
40 years ago, apparently, at the same age as well as you, I have given the book with the General Theory of Relativity and have left city. Three months I wandered on mountains and a taiga, read, derived formulas and pondered upon each phrase. Any person did not distract me from this work. Then I have come to a conclusion, that the Theory of Relativity, Special and General, is big error.
But how we will be without the Theory of Relativity, if all modern physics is based on it? Almost thirty years I worked and have created a nonhypothetical method of studying of nature. I have issued it in my book ?The Theory of Interactions?. The Theory of Relativity can be thrown out and, as dreadful dream, can be forgotten.
About the Roger Highfield's report you write, that it is typical example of the putrefaction that modern physics has descended into. This physics is not science  it is thorough rot. I agree with you.
Well, but what should be a science? On 4 December, I have sent you by post my book ?The Theory of Interactions?. You will read it and teil: the science should be such.
In this book I have stated the mechanics, which allows solving all problems of micro and a macrocosm. This mechanics is the mechanics of Newton, but I have removed from it all mystical things, which has resulted at the end of 19 centuries in the Theory of Relativity.
I think, that the theoretical mechanics is basic discipline, which should be learned not only by engineers, physics, biologists, but also by all humanists. The mechanics gives the person reliable knowledge with which assistance he may distinguish true from a deceit. However in the modern view the theoretical mechanics for this purpose is not necessary. My courses of lectures in Russian for students "Dynamics (The skeleton of lectures on the theoretical mechanics for building specialties)"
( http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Dinmk3A5.pdf ) and "The course of lectures on the theory of interaction (the mechanics foundation)"
( http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/LEKTV4A5.pdf ) I have laid out on the specified sites.
In your Email the modern physicists, Black Holers and Big Bangers, you call as liars, gangsters, and utterly incompetent quacksalversliars. On the one band it so. But on the other band, they are unfortunate stray people. At the insight, at the end of life, they will similar to Einstein widerstand, that they all life inflated a soap bubble. It has blown out, and frorn their work of nothing remained. Everyone who has believed in the Theory of Relativity, have lost; the reason. They became crazies. And as each crazy they furiously protect their understanding of the world.
The most exact of sciences is the celestial mechanics. The outstanding scientists of 1719 centuries, by solving of the problems of the celestial mechanics, have created modern mathematics. In 20th Century the physiciststheorists, considering the physics as the queen of sciences, have forced celestial mechanicians to take into account relativistic additives, which value into four powers is less than accuracy of observation. Now in the theories of planets movement and in theories of the Earth rotation these additives of the General Theory of Relativity are applied without fail.
During two Centimes, from 18 to 19th, the celestial mechanics was be developing by
more exact resolving of tasks with accounting of influence of the bodies, which are earlier not
taken into account. And with each new solved problem the Newton gravity law is be proving,
and the hypotheses about the other law of gravitation were be rejecting. Only there was no
development of the celestial mechanics in 20th Century.
In the modern celestial mechanics the approximate analytical solution of the problems, advanced in 19 Century, are submitted as rows with hundreds coefficients, These Solutions are be now comparing with hundreds thousands data of observations. The residual between calculations and observations are explained by small various hypothetical additives, including by relativistic ones, Then these additives are be entering, and the hundreds coefficients of rows are be determining on concurrence of calculations with hundreds thousands of observations data. Thus, these additives are be legalizing, and the hypothetical phenomena and properties of nature are be considermg as discovering. To any sane person it is clear, that such way the many nonexistent phenomena of nature are possible to discover.
(Zitatende) 
Lesen Sie bitte weiter unter:
Brief von Prof. Joseph J. Smulsky
http://www.ikz.ru/~smulski/Papers/Crother09a.pdf
Beste Gr??e Ekkehard Friebe


19.08.2008 10:48 






