Starship Asterisk*

Chris L. Petersen wrote:

C.L. Petersen quoted noblackhole: "The theory is demonstrably false - neither General Relativity nor Newton's theory predict them (the Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole). Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes."

C. L. Petersen responded: "Here we have factual errors again."

However, C. L. Petersen has not dealt with the facts at all. First, the theoretical Michell-Laplace dark body does not possess the alleged signatures of a black hole, and so it is not a black hole. Second, Schwarzschild's solution does indeed forbid black holes, but C. Petersen has persistently ignored that fact, and that is unscientific. I reiterate yet again that it is easily verified that Schwarzschild's actual solution, which is not that which is attributed to him by proponents of the black hole, forbids black holes. Yet again, here is Schwarzschild's actual paper:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... schild.pdf

C. L. Petersen has so far failed to even acknowledge that "Schwarzschild's solution" is not Schwarzschild's solution. One can only wonder why, given that the irrefutable evidence has been adduced here several times. Ignoring scientific facts is not scientific. Contrary to C. L. Petersen's unsubstantiated assertion, I have not committed factual errors. Mr. Petersen, please provide your proof that Schwarzschild's solution does not forbid black holes and your proof that the Michell-Laplace dark body is some kind of black hole. Mr. Petersen has ignored the fact, reported in my previous post, that it is on the one hand claimed by the proponents of the black hole that black holes have an escape velocity c (in vacuum) and on the other hand that nothing, including light, can even leave the alleged black hole. That these claims are contradictory is plain.

C. L. Petersen quoted noblackhole thus: "Since the black hole is a false theoretical entity it does not exist. It is indeed a figment of the imagination. Scientifically, it is nonsense to say that a false theoretical entity actually exists."

C. L. Petersen responded: "Here we have a highly non-scientific statement, apparently from somebody who doesn't understand science. There is no such thing as a "false theoretical entity". Even if you prefer to emphasize theories that propose alternate explanations for black holes, perfectly good theories also support their existence. If you are scientifically honest, the farthest you can go is to state that you prefer the theories that support alternate explanations for our observations. Any statement of absolute certainty (black holes are "a figment of the imagination") immediately tells us we are dealing with a non-scientist or a pseudoscientist, and thus our BS filters should all be pegged."

But C. L. Petersen is again wrong. There is such a thing as a false theoretical entity. If a theory is alleged to predict something and it is however shown that the reasoning leading to that theoretical entity is fatally flawed, then the said theoretical entity is inconsistent with the theory that is alleged to predict it and so is a false theoretical entity - it does not exist. The black hole is such an entity, and so it is indeed a figment of the imagination. There is no theory that predicts black holes - General Relativity and Newton's theory of gravitational do not predict black holes. Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes (as his actual paper irrefutably testifies) and the theoretical Michell-Laplace dark body is not a black hole (the black hole is allegedly predicted by General Relativity). The black hole has been conjured up by erroneous mathematics and misapplication of physical principles, from a corruption of Schwarzschild's solution, and is thereby inconsistent with General Relativity.

C. L. Petersen wrote: "There is no reason that physical singularities cannot exist. They may, or they may not; current theory is not advanced enough to make that determination. A physical singularity and a mathematical singularity are not the same thing."

This is not correct. The Theory of Relativity forbids the alleged infinitely dense point-mass singularity that the relativists routinely claim resides at the heart of a black hole (at the 'origin' of their coordinates). However, General Relativity and Special Relativity must necessarily be consistent with one another. Special Relativity forbids infinite density, and so it does not matter how General Relativity is alleged to form an infinite density, infinite density cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, and so General Relativity necessarily forbids infinite density, and hence forbids the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole, which, according to the relativists, is produced by irresistible gravitational collapse (an alleged phenomenon for which there is not one iota of physical evidence).

C. L. Petersen speaks often of scientific honesty. Surely it is scientific honesty to examine the evidence and acknowledge the evidence. Yet he has not done so in relation to Schwarzschild's solution and he has not addressed the contradictory claims related to escape velocity of a black hole that are maintained by the proponents of the black hole.

Now I also note that C. L. Petersen has once again resorted to vilification and insult, apparently immune from moderator intervention. Here again is what C. L. Petersen wrote: "Here we have a highly non-scientific statement, apparently from somebody who doesn't understand science. ... Any statement of absolute certainty (black holes are "a figment of the imagination") immediately tells us we are dealing with a non-scientist or a pseudoscientist, and thus our BS filters should all be pegged." These remarks are far from scientific - just plain ridicule, bereft of anything sober or constructive. I note the following rule of this forum:

"4. Be constructive, be polite, be nice, don't attack people, don't use language that would get this forum blacklisted by 'family friendly' filtering software such as is used in many libraries, respect others' privacy, respect copyrights, etc … the usual things that make for a welcoming and successful internet discussion forum."

Some more link about the reality of black hole.

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1550 ... index.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandte ... tists.html

http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1588 ... index.html

http://www.physorg.com/news157212704.html

Enjoy

Also some on the reality of event horizon thus black hole:

http://cosmicmatters.keckobservatory.or ... 7dec_1.htm
http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/fe ... les/6573/3
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19223
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Scien ... eturn.html
http://maxim.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/science/science.html
http://www.ias.ac.in/jarch/currsci/73/00000247.pdf
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/blackhole1.html
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... rizon.html

Enjoy

noblackhole wrote:Yet again, here is Schwarzschild's actual paper:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... schild.pdf

The only thing I see that supports what you are saying is not in the paper itself but in the Foreword to this particular publication of the paper, which was not written by Schwarzschild but by somebody else. If anything in the paper itself supports what you are saying, please point out exactly where it is and what it says.

Doum wrote:Some more link about the reality of black hole ...

Doum wrote:Also some on the reality of event horizon thus black hole ...

You realize, of course, the futility of arguing with a vacuum. The hostile individual calling himself noblackhole can't actually think for himself. Everything he writes merely parrots the babble of profiteering wackos who push the so-called theories of electric universe and plasma cosmology. He is no more than a heckler in this forum.

noblackhole wrote:Special Relativity forbids infinite density, and so it does not matter how General Relativity is alleged to form an infinite density, infinite density cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, and so General Relativity necessarily forbids infinite density, and hence forbids the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole, which, according to the relativists, is produced by irresistible gravitational collapse

Here we see a failure to understand how many theories, including SR, have realms of applicability. The fact that SR might not be able to describe a singularity does not mean it forbids it. It just means that the theory breaks down under those conditions. We don't say that Newtonian mechanics forbids very fast motion, we only recognize that the theory fails under those conditions. SR successfully deals with mechanics in the case of high velocities (and other things as well, of course).

Neither is it necessary or expected that SR and GR must "be reconciled" with each other. As in the previous cases, GR deals in part with a realm where SR fails, non-inertial frames.

GR does, in fact, predict singularities and black holes, and the observed properties of presumed black holes are consistent with those predictions. That is an important reason that nearly all scientists who have explored this subject consider black holes to exist.

apodman wrote:You realize, of course, the futility of arguing with a vacuum. The hostile individual calling himself noblackhole can't actually think for himself. Everything he writes merely parrots the babble of profiteering wackos who push the so-called theories of electric universe and plasma cosmology. He is no more than a heckler in this forum.

I agree that you can't use logic to argue with dogmatists. But I think this forum is read by quite a few more people than participate in the discussions. Responding to examples like this serves the useful purpose of educating others about what pseudoscientific arguments look like. IMO we do a service if people who are interested in science, but perhaps have little formal training in it, are better able to detect non-scientific ideas cloaked in the vocabulary of science.

G'day from the land of ozzzz

Hello Doum

I have read the posts that you posted.

There are various forms of Black hole definitions.

The actual definition states that a black hole has a singularity.

The types of black holes that are in most links are actually ultra compact objects containing some form of composite degenerate matter.

Degenerate matter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate ... degeneracy

These compact objects have a limit to their size. The largest so called black hole recorded is about 20 Billion solar mass and located at the centre of a cluster of clusters of galaxies with a jet that ejects matter millions of light years.

Hawkins is ill !!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30308676

apodman wrote:

Doum wrote:Some more link about the reality of black hole ...

Doum wrote:Also some on the reality of event horizon thus black hole ...

You realize, of course, the futility of arguing with a vacuum. The hostile individual calling himself noblackhole can't actually think for himself. Everything he writes merely parrots the babble of profiteering wackos who push the so-called theories of electric universe and plasma cosmology. He is no more than a heckler in this forum.

Apodman - I'm surprised at your appraisal. I see no hostility in noblackhole .. I do see that he is convinced of his view. MOG also determines there are no black holes, and in fact no singularities. MOG has nothing with do with plasma cosmology. Remember the hostility that exiled Aristarchus when he said the sun was the centre of the solar system, and not earth. Recall that for nearly 3,500 years the consensus held an earth centred universe (and that view had nothing whatever to do with Christianity, by the way, an obivous fact for anyone who has read the Bible.)

Chris Peterson wrote:

apodman wrote:You realize, of course, the futility of arguing with a vacuum. The hostile individual calling himself noblackhole can't actually think for himself. Everything he writes merely parrots the babble of profiteering wackos who push the so-called theories of electric universe and plasma cosmology. He is no more than a heckler in this forum.

I agree that you can't use logic to argue with dogmatists. But I think this forum is read by quite a few more people than participate in the discussions. Responding to examples like this serves the useful purpose of educating others about what pseudoscientific arguments look like. IMO we do a service if people who are interested in science, but perhaps have little formal training in it, are better able to detect non-scientific ideas cloaked in the vocabulary of science.

Absolutely! Like Big Bang for instance. Infinite density would require infinite energy to explode it .. yet if infinite energy were used it would explode it to nothingness .. there would be no matter left, there would be no universe. How an idea like Big Bang ever began is too huge a puzzle for common sense ever to understand except through primitive images of explosions being grasped at as the first, most basic idea to explain the flight of galaxies.

Chris Peterson wrote:

noblackhole wrote:Special Relativity forbids infinite density, and so it does not matter how General Relativity is alleged to form an infinite density, infinite density cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, and so General Relativity necessarily forbids infinite density, and hence forbids the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the alleged black hole, which, according to the relativists, is produced by irresistible gravitational collapse

Here we see a failure to understand how many theories, including SR, have realms of applicability. The fact that SR might not be able to describe a singularity does not mean it forbids it. It just means that the theory breaks down under those conditions. We don't say that Newtonian mechanics forbids very fast motion, we only recognize that the theory fails under those conditions. SR successfully deals with mechanics in the case of high velocities (and other things as well, of course).

Neither is it necessary or expected that SR and GR must "be reconciled" with each other. As in the previous cases, GR deals in part with a realm where SR fails, non-inertial frames.

GR does, in fact, predict singularities and black holes, and the observed properties of presumed black holes are consistent with those predictions. That is an important reason that nearly all scientists who have explored this subject consider black holes to exist.

And demonstrated non-locality seems to mean Relativity is wrong.

I repeat this here for the benefit of the casual observer, noting that no response was given by those supporters of Relativity.
For the same casual observer and also supporters of Relativity I suggest a reading of 'Reinventing Gravity' - MOG - by John Moffat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-locality
"In physics, nonlocality is a direct influence of one object on another distant object, in violation of the principle of locality. In classical physics, nonlocality in the form of action at a distance appeared in corpusculas theories and later disappeared in field theories. Action at a distance is incompatible with relativity. In quantum physics nonlocality re-appeared in the form of entanglement. Physical reality of entanglement has been demonstrated experimentally[1] together with the absence of local hidden variables. Entanglement is compatible with relativity; however, it prompts some of the more philosophically oriented discussions concerning quantum theory. More general nonlocality beyond quantum entanglement, but still compatible with relativity, is an active field of theoretical investigation but has yet to be observed."

apodman wrote:

Doum wrote:Some more link about the reality of black hole ...

Doum wrote:Also some on the reality of event horizon thus black hole ...

You realize, of course, the futility of arguing with a vacuum. The hostile individual calling himself noblackhole can't actually think for himself. Everything he writes merely parrots the babble of profiteering wackos who push the so-called theories of electric universe and plasma cosmology. He is no more than a heckler in this forum.

Yes of course. But posting some link on real detection and measurement of black hole and their event horison and correcting some affirmation made by other is also ok. Many reader's will enjoy it. Of course you can correct me.

by harry on Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:00 am
"The types of black holes that are in most links are actually ultra compact objects containing some form of composite degenerate matter"

No they are not containing some degenerate form of matter. Degenerate form of matter might be in neutron star (But they are only neutron so i aint sure we can say that a neutron is a degenerate matter). After around 3 solar mass there aint any degenerate matter (Neutron star.). There is only black hole and it's event horison.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_black_hole

"If the mass of the collapsing part of the star is below a certain critical value, the end product is a compact star, either a white dwarf or a neutron star. Both these stars have a maximum mass. So if the collapsing star has a mass exceeding this limit, the collapse will continue forever (catastrophic gravitational collapse) and form a black hole. The maximum mass of a neutron star is not well known, but is believed to be about 3 solar masses. The least massive stellar-mass black hole so far observed has an estimated mass of 3.8 solar masses."

So the maximum limit for neutron star formation are between 3 and 3.8 solar mass and for black hole the final minimal solar mass is also between 3 and 3.8 Note that i say final minimal mass formation for black hole. Because a supernova lost most of its mass when it explode and only a fraction of it is left to become a black hole(i mean that 3 to 3.8 solar mass are left from a star much bigger to become a minimal size black hole.

Also you said:
"These compact objects have a limit to their size. The largest so called black hole recorded is about 20 Billion solar mass and located at the centre of a cluster of clusters of galaxies with a jet that ejects matter millions of light years."

No it is situate inside a single galaxie.

Here are some videos about neutron and black hole formation for everyone to enjoy!

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discove ... -video.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jT2wkbPfUYc
And here a neutron star loose against a black hole:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLaoT611 ... re=related

And here they say that black hole might have 2 solar mass. Variable are variable.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8yN77Sp ... re=related

Chris L. Petersen wrote:

"Here we see a failure to understand how many theories, including SR, have realms of applicability. The fact that SR might not be able to describe a singularity does not mean it forbids it. It just means that the theory breaks down under those conditions. We don't say that Newtonian mechanics forbids very fast motion, we only recognize that the theory fails under those conditions. SR successfully deals with mechanics in the case of high velocities (and other things as well, of course).

"Neither is it necessary or expected that SR and GR must "be reconciled" with each other. As in the previous cases, GR deals in part with a realm where SR fails, non-inertial frames.

"GR does, in fact, predict singularities and black holes, and the observed properties of presumed black holes are consistent with those predictions. That is an important reason that nearly all scientists who have explored this subject consider black holes to exist."


C. L. Petersen has again make demonstrably false statements. According to Einstein and his followers his laws of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field. Here are Einstein's own words:

"Stated more exactly, there are finite regions, where, with respect to a suitably chosen space of reference, material particles move freely without acceleration, and in which the laws of the special theory of relativity, which have been developed above, hold with remarkable accuracy. Such regions we shall call 'Galilean regions'."

W. Pauli echoes Einstein:

"We can think of the physical realization of the local coordinate system Ko in terms of a freely floating, sufficiently small, box which is not subjected to any external forces apart from gravity, and which is falling under the influence of the latter. ... It is evidently natural to assume that the special theory of relativity should remain valid in Ko."

So it is indeed necessary, according to Einstein and his followers, that General Relativity and Special Relativity be consistent with one another. Now the theory of Special Relativity forbids infinite density, because, according to Special Relativity, infinite density would require an infinite amount of energy, which is impossible. General Relativity cannot be inconsistent with Special Relativity, as Einstein maintains. And so infinite density, howsoever alleged to be formed in General Relativity cannot be reconciled with Special Relativity, and so General Relativity necessarily forbids infinite density.

In claiming that General Relativity predicts black holes, C. L. Petersen has once again chosen to ignore the irrefutable fact that Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes. Ignoring the facts is unscientific.

C. L. Petersen has again chosen to ignore the obvious contradictions in the claims made by the relativists for black hole 'escape velocity'. Ignoring the facts does not resolve the relativists' contradiction.

Chris L. Petersen wrote:

"I agree that you can't use logic to argue with dogmatists. But I think this forum is read by quite a few more people than participate in the discussions. Responding to examples like this serves the useful purpose of educating others about what pseudoscientific arguments look like. IMO we do a service if people who are interested in science, but perhaps have little formal training in it, are better able to detect non-scientific ideas cloaked in the vocabulary of science."

And still C. L. Petersen resorts to ridicule instead of addressing the facts, which he has chosen to ignore. Ridicule is not scientific method, and carries no weight, no matter how often it is brought to bear. C. L. Petersen has dogmatically defended the black hole by choosing to ignore the facts which prove it nonsense. Mr. Petersen, if black holes are predicted by Schwarzschild's solution, provide a proof that Schwarzschild is wrong, since his solution clearly forbids black holes - one need only study Schwarzschild's paper to verify this. Here again is Schwarzschild's paper:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.c ... schild.pdf

Contrary to C. L. Petersen's contention, General Relativity does not predict black holes. Black holes have been conjured by erroneous mathematics and misapplication of physical principles - Schwarzschild's solution forbids black holes.

apodman wrote:

"The only thing I see that supports what you are saying is not in the paper itself but in the Foreword to this particular publication of the paper, which was not written by Schwarzschild but by somebody else. If anything in the paper itself supports what you are saying, please point out exactly where it is and what it says."

The Foreword referred to is a note by the translators. Their note does not in any way alter the contents of Schwarzschild's paper. apodman is advised to study Schwarzschild's paper carefully in order to satisfy himself that Schwarzschild's solution forbids black holes, for the proof is clearly contained in the paper itself. Schwarzschild's solution is given by his eq. (14). It should be also borne in mind that Schwarzschild's solution is so constructed that all points in the spatial section of his manifold are in one-to-one correspondence with all points in the manifold for Euclidean 3-space, as he effectively remarks in his paper: "The uniqueness of the solution resulted spontaneously through the present calculation." Schwarzschild's "present calculation" begins on page 2 of his paper, after a preamble on Einstein's field equations. If apodman also thinks that Schwarzschild is wrong, let him too prove Schwarzschild wrong. Perhaps apodman could also address the contradictions in the claims of the relativists for black hole 'escape velocity', which Mr. Petersen has chosen to ignore.

Relying upon the 'authority' of the proponents of the black hole is no substitute for independent examination of the facts, from which independent conclusion can be drawn. Simply taking for granted what proponents of the black hole say is no way to scientific truth. Proponents of the black hole evidently prefer to ignore the facts and entreat all and sundry to follow their example, and thoughtlessly accept black hole dogma. Schwarzschild's original memoir has now been made freely available to any interested person and so they can now decide for themselves what is what.

noblackhole wrote:

Chris Peterson wrote:Neither is it necessary or expected that SR and GR must "be reconciled" with each other. As in the previous cases, GR deals in part with a realm where SR fails, non-inertial frames.

"GR does, in fact, predict singularities and black holes, and the observed properties of presumed black holes are consistent with those predictions. That is an important reason that nearly all scientists who have explored this subject consider black holes to exist.

C. L. Petersen has again make demonstrably false statements. According to Einstein and his followers his laws of Special Relativity must manifest in sufficiently small regions of his gravitational field. Here are Einstein's own words...

Non sequitur. The quotes you provide don't deal in the slightest with the points I made.

In claiming that General Relativity predicts black holes, C. L. Petersen has once again chosen to ignore the irrefutable fact that Schwarzschild's actual solution forbids black holes. Ignoring the facts is unscientific.

Correction: you personally interpret Schwarzchild's work in this way. You are nearly alone in doing so. The fact that you disagree with it does not make it "irrefutable".

About Schwarzschild's radius, i have 2 link here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius

and,

http://asterisk.apod.com/pos ... =8&t=13425

I extract this from the last link but its better for all to read the link:

"The Schwarzschild solution appears to have singularities at r = 0 and r = rs; some of the metric components blow up at these radii. Since the Schwarzschild metric is only expected to be valid for radii larger than the radius R of the gravitating body, there is no problem as long as R > rs. For ordinary stars and planets this is always the case. For example, the radius of the Sun is approximately 700,000 km, while its Schwarzschild radius is only 3 km.

One might naturally wonder what happens when the radius R becomes less than or equal to the Schwarzschild radius rs. It turns out that the Schwarzschild solution still makes sense in this case, although it has some rather odd properties. The apparent singularity at r = rs is an illusion; it is an example of what is called a coordinate singularity. As the name implies, the singularity arises from a bad choice of coordinates or coordinate conditions. By choosing another set of suitable coordinates one can show that the metric is well-defined at the Schwarzschild radius. See, for example, Lemaitre coordinates, Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates or Novikov coordinates.

The case r = 0 is different, however. If one asks that the solution be valid for all r one runs into a true physical singularity, or gravitational singularity, at the origin. To see that this is a true singularity one must look at quantities that are independent of the choice of coordinates. One such important quantity is the Kretschmann invariant, which is given by

There is a formula that i cant copy. (Read the link)

At r = 0 the curvature blows up (becomes infinite) indicating the presence of a singularity. At this point the metric, and space-time itself, is no longer well-defined. For a long time it was thought that such a solution was non-physical. However, a greater understanding of general relativity led to the realization that such singularities were a generic feature of the theory and not just an exotic special case. Such solutions are now believed to exist and are termed black holes.

The Schwarzschild solution, taken to be valid for all r > 0, is called a Schwarzschild black hole. It is a perfectly valid solution of the Einstein field equations, although it has some rather bizarre properties. For r < rs the Schwarzschild radial coordinate r becomes timelike and the time coordinate t becomes spacelike. A curve at constant r is no longer a possible worldline of a particle or observer, not even if a force is exerted to try to keep it there; this occurs because spacetime has been curved so much that the direction of cause and effect (the particle's future light cone) points into the singularity. The surface r = rs demarcates what is called the event horizon of the black hole. It represents the point past which light can no longer escape the gravitational field. Any physical object whose radius R becomes less than or equal to the Schwarzschild radius will undergo gravitational collapse and become a black hole."

Enjoy reading!

G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzzz

Black hole discussion will go on and on until scientists communicate their research to the public.

This paper is quite interesting

Just because I post these links does not mean that I agree with them, Just sharing the reading. If I have repeated this link. OOPs I sometimes re-read the papers.


http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3162
Instability of Black Hole Horizon With Respect to Electromagnetic Excitations

Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2009 (this version, v2))

Abstract: Analyzing exact solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations in the Kerr-Schild formalism we show that black hole horizon is instable with respect to electromagnetic excitations. Contrary to perturbative smooth harmonic solutions, the exact solutions for electromagnetic excitations on the Kerr background are accompanied by singular beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the horizon, forming the holes which allow radiation to escape interior of black-hole. As a result, even the weak vacuum fluctuations break the horizon topologically, covering it by a set of fluctuating microholes. We conclude with a series of nontrivial consequences, one of which is that there is no information loss inside of black-hole.

Chris L. Petersen wrote:

"Non sequitur. The quotes you provide don't deal in the slightest with the points I made."

Not true - SR must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein's gravitational field, as Einstein himself said and as Pauli reiterated. Thus the two theories must be consistent. Infinite density is forbidden by SR. Hence, if SR must hold in sufficiently small regions of Einstein's gravitational field, infinite density is forbidden there, and such regions can be located anywhere in Einstein's gravitational field. Thus, the infinitely dense point-mass singularity of the black hole is forbidden by the Theory of Relativity.

Chris L. Petersen wrote:

'Correction: you personally interpret Schwarzchild's work in this way. You are nearly alone in doing so. The fact that you disagree with it does not make it "irrefutable".'

Nonsense and balderdash - Schwarzschild's solution speaks for itself. Again, you ignore the facts and fail to provide your proof that Schwarzschild is wrong. This is not a matter of 'interpretation' but a matter of geometry. There is only one singularity in Schwarzschild's solution, as he clearly demonstrates in his analysis and final solution. Evasion of the issues is not scientific method either, no matter how often resorted to. Show us where you think Schwarzschild committed an error in his mathematical analysis, and then prove the alleged error, since his solution contains only one singularity, and hence no black hole.

You also yet again ignore the contradictions of the relativists concerning black hole 'escape velocity'. Even though nothing at all can even leave the alleged black hole, according to the relativists, a black hole is alleged to nonetheless have an escape velocity (speed of light in vacuum), according to the very same relativists. Provide a proof that this contradiction is not a contradiction. Not only that, by the very same expression they claim the said 'escape velocity' the relativists also claim the "Schwarzschild radius" (the 'radius' of the event horizon). The post by Doum gives the relativists' claims clearly enough on this matter. Since the relevant expression used by the relativists plays this dual role in their claims, also provide a proof that the "Schwarzschild radius" is even a radius in the "Schwarzschild" manifold.

You accused me previously, indirectly, of presenting pseudo-scientific arguments. Your charge is patently false, for there is nothing pseudo-scientific at all in citing Schwarzschild's actual paper and providing a link to it, and pointing out that his solution contains only one singularity and hence no black hole, and there is nothing pseudo-scientific in revealing a major contradiction in the relativists' claims for black hole 'escape velocity' and requesting you to deal with that too. These are legitimate scientific matters. Not once have you attempted proofs, and you have resolutely failed to even acknowledge that "Schwarzschild's solution" is not even Schwarzschild's solution, despite the irrefutable evidence. You have not been scientific at all, despite your avowed commitment to scientific truth. Let us have your proofs, as a proponent of black holes. Ignorance and evasion are not scientific methods. Put your science to the test.

OK, this is going nowhere. noblackhole believes that black holes can't exist. The majority of the rest believe what the predominant theory and evidence tell us, black holes can and do exist. There can be no reconciliation. Harry will always find some place to post his reading list, and aristarchusinexile will always manage to inform us of his latest pet theory. This topic is closed.