The Problem with Einstein's Theory of Relativity

So, after asking how we know there are black holes, I looked at this video supposedly proving black holes, then the one I posted above about Crothers, which make me go watch these:

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Im only 7 mins in the second video you posted about that guy, and im interested to hear his theories. But when he spoke in the first video and now the second, he brings up the same point about Einstein equaling the energy-momentum tensor to 0, and then complaining about how he can claim that a body causes gravity outside the body when the body = 0... I will continue watching and perhaps he explains why this is so shocking, but from even my position of ignorance on this subject, I would think that it is = to 0, to establish the raw physical variables involved in the circumstances of gravity, and so if a body or mass exists, you would plug that masses energy-momentum value instead of 0, to figure out its gravitational geometry.

At the end of Crother's talk in the second video on his presentation, he brings up Kozyrev 'sources of stellar energy and the theory of the internal constitution of stars' which you can read at this link.

Then this link sets out to point out Crother's errors. I am in the middle of going through this information. I am interested in what Kosyrev was saying, and trying to suss out what I can on that, if you have some ideas, please share them.

I found this quote from that link interesting in looking at all of this and will look for Crother's rebuttal:

Meanwhile, the EU supporters distrust mathematical models, considering the level of excuses I receive when I've tried to find reproducible details on their Electric Sun models. EU seems to rely on what could only be described as electrophilic pareidolia (Wikipedia: Pareidolia) in observations, assuming any filamentary glowing structure must be an electric arc.

Crothers is all mathematics with no experiment.
The Electric Universe is all experiment with no mathematics.
How these two ended up working together is a mystery in itself!

Mr. Crothers has apparently prepared a rebuttal to Sharples, but it was rejected (!!) by 'Progress in Physics' (Crothers is on the editorial board of this publication). I suspect the rebuttal was longer than the new 8-page limit of PiPs new policy.

If Mr. Crothers has this response online, I'll be happy to post a LINK to it. “Experiment without theory is tinkering. Theory without experiment is numerology.“

Crother's stated:

The Black Hole Catastrophe: A Short Reply to J. J. Sharples Authors:

Stephen J. Crothers A recent Letter to the Editor (Sharples J. J., Coordinate transformations and metric extension: a rebuttal to the relativistic claims of Stephen J. Crothers, Progress in Physics, v.1, 2010) has analysed a number of my papers.

Dr. Sharples has committed errors in both mathematics and physics. His notion that r = 0 in the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" marks the point at the centre of the related manifold is false, as is his related claim that Schwarzschild's actual solution describes a manifold that is extendible.

His post hoc introduction of Newtonian concepts and related mathematical expressions into the "Schwarzschild solution" is invalid; for instance, Newtonian two-body relations into what is alleged to be a one-body problem. Each of the objections are treated in turn and their invalidity fully demonstrated. Black hole theory is riddled with contradictions. This article provides definitive proof that black holes do not exist.

source

Well, that was short and sweet, but I will look for more.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

Well, that was short and sweet, but I will look for more.

Yes. Now, since you seem to find that quote significant, can you explain in your own words what it says and what it has to do with the discussion?

For those who are so upset with those of us who don't just accept whatever science tells us, I want to as you to really think about what you are clinging to. If something can be shown to not work in a mathematical equation, then the equation is wrong.

If physical evidence does not play out according to a theory, then the theory is wrong. I haven't been waking up all my life every day thinking, "What can I prove is wrong with.....". Instead, I am driven to find truth no matter who is saying it, what discipline it is coming from, or how much it might upset others or my own beliefs. So, for the first time in my life, I have finally looked up "What science got wrong" and found this lecture on UFO's. I think if you are wanting to learn, then any area should be looked at. While this thread is not about UFO's, it is about science. So, if you are interested in hearing from a man with great credentials talking about what science has gotten wrong as well as right, then watch this. It has 9 parts, I will post the first few:

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I think why the density of black hole may be termed infinite, is that it is dynamic in the sense that as each smallest increment of time progresses the black hole increases in mass and energy but there still must remain a 'pin point' relative center, which assuredly the bulk of the energy and mass would go, creating such density. Though I think a black holes diameter may grow.

"The Schwarzschild radius (sometimes historically referred to as the gravitational radius) is the radius of a sphere such that, if all the mass of an object is compressed within that sphere, the escape speed from the surface of the sphere would equal the speed of light. An example of an object smaller than its Schwarzschild radius is a black hole. Once a stellar remnant collapses below this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer visible.[1] It is a characteristic radius associated with every quantity of mass." - wiki

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

You just derailed your own thread?
Your OP is about a "problem" with black holes and relativity. Now the thread is about UFOs?

reply to post by Phage


He didnt want to learn or discuss... Sometimes it just feels good to say "Einstein was wrong".

reply to post by ImaFungi


Actually I think infinite density might be possible, if the energies associated with the center of the black hole, are energies that violate the pauli exclusion principle. In that sense if they are, then there can be an infinite number of energies located in a single space with an increasing amount of energy being added, because the black hole is acting as the perfect energy containment, very little radiation can escape, and the space time is most likely so curved, that the radiation just follows that curved path indefinitely, making a black hole like a container of light. Think if we can create a pocket of space that once energy enters, it doesnt go out, and we shone 100000 flashlights on that space for 1000 years, the energy would continually increase in that area. This is what is thought is happening at the center of galaxies, but instead of flashlights, it is stars and planets and other cosmic debris falling into that container.

gorgious........1984



promise the tune will stay in your mind while you re with your girl


- dont worry about the Rah/ra... thats anulled

reply to post by Phage


Not if you focus on the issues of science not being willing to admit problems, silencing those seeking truth, and how this applies to the theory of black holes.

I shared those videos just to see how this is happening. If you all want to talk about the ufo issue, there are lots of threads about it. You of course did not read my stated reasons for posting that when I posted the videos, but obviously love to play "gotcha".

" - oh darling

you hurry home.... - to me "

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


Why dont black hole exist? Those videos stated nothing, they were some guy misunderstanding the meaning of blackholes and then saying they didnt exist. There is no argument there, he never said what he thinks exists in the middle of a galaxy if not a black hole.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

Why dont black hole exist? Those videos stated nothing, they were some guy misunderstanding the meaning of blackholes and then saying they didnt exist. There is no argument there, he never said what he thinks exists in the middle of a galaxy if not a black hole.

Hmmm, I thought Crother's explanations of the problems in the equations was quite clear in explaining why their "proof" of black holes via those same equations is thus wrong and thus no proof.

I think the videos stated quite a lot, but you are entitled to think otherwise.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


I wrote you a few replies as to why his statements in the video are false, which you failed to reply to. Also he makes no mention as to what he believes exists at the center of spiral galaxies. You and him seem to misunderstand what is meant by the concept of black hole, and what the math represents. Crothers 'Proofs' are misinterpretations and understandings. It would be like me saying 2+2 cant possibly = 4 ... because there is clearly no 4 on the left side of the = sign so they cant possibly be =.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by UnifiedSerenity

 

I wrote you a few replies as to why his statements in the video are false, which you failed to reply to. Also he makes no mention as to what he believes exists at the center of spiral galaxies. You and him seem to misunderstand what is meant by the concept of black hole, and what the math represents. Crothers 'Proofs' are misinterpretations and understandings. It would be like me saying 2+2 can possibly = 4 ... because there is clearly no 4 on the left side of the = sign so they cant possibly be =.

but they are not saying 2+2 = 4. They are using 0 and negative values that disprove their own theory. I hope some others can do more than ask what's in the center if not a black hole. Just because we don't know doesn't mean it's a black hole.

reply to post by UnifiedSerenity


What is crothers theory as to what is in the center, what can it hypothetically or theoretically be? You dont understand why the 0 is there, he is misinterpreting the value and meaning of why that 0 exists in the equation, its to have an arbitrary value to set the balance of the equation to because there are no numerals or physical values on the right hand of the equation, it is purely mathematical construct of variables, algebra. Once values are found to be placed in place of what the letters in the equation represent, the 0 wont equal 0. I have very little understanding of math but this is extremely intuitive, crothers must have even less comprehension of math and physics. If he so carelessly neglected to argue with his own easy thinking and accidentally make a career off of smart sounding follies for fooling fools.


en.wikipedia.org...