I draw the forum’s attention to the fact that the so-called Schwarzschild solution is not Schwarzschild’s solution. This can be easily verified by reading Schwarzschild’s original paper. Furthermore, the all too frequent claim that Schwarzschild obtained the black hole from his solution is patently false, since Schwarzschild did not breathe a single word about such an object, because one cannot get a black hole from Schwarzschild’s original solution. Schwarzschild’s original solution is regular everywhere in the range 0 < r < infinity. The standard line-element of the standard metric erroneously named for Schwarzschild, does occur in Schwarzschild’s original paper, in terms of what he called his auxiliary parameter R, defined on alpha < R < infinity, where his alpha = 2m. The foregoing facts have been ignored by the relativists. That’s not scientific method, is it? The relativists have confounded Schwarzschild’s R with his r and thereby bungled their analysis.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The so-called Schwarzschild metric is actually a corruption of Schwarzschild’s 1915 solution, and of the solution obtained independently by Johannes Droste in May 1916. Droste’s solution is Schwarzschild’s auxiliary parameter solution. The so-called Schwarzschild solution was obtained by David Hilbert in December 1916, but he botched the interpretation of the variable r therein, and most of the relativists have done the same since. It is from Hilbert’s solution, on 0 < r < infinity, that the black hole was ‘’derived’’. It is a fact, very simply demonstrated, that Hilbert’s solution is incompatible with Schwarzschild’s true solution since the one cannot be obtained from the other by an admissible transformation of coordinates. Droste’s solution is, of course, compatible with Schwarzschild. One cannot get a black hole from Droste’s solution either, since it is Schwarzschild’s solution in the latter’s auxiliary parameter, and Schwarzschild’s solution has no black hole.

It is fair and accurate to say that the black hole has become a scientific fraud that makes Piltdown Man look like a pimple on an elephant’s rump.

You can verify my claims by reading Schwarzschild’s original paper, which you can get at

www.geocities.com/theometria/schwarzschild.pdf

and Droste’s paper at

www.geocities.com/theometria/Droste.pdf

A documented and therefore irrefutable history of the genesis of the “black hole” fraud can be obtained at

www.geocities.com/theometria/holes.pdf

and a correct description of the fundamental geometry of Einstein’s gravitational field can be had at

www.geocities.com/theometria/inRussia.pdf

It is evident that the relativists cannot be trusted to do science or to tell the truth. Here is another recent example of claims that are patently false. See this article:

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s1619786.htm

and note the claims about Einstein. However, Einstein never claimed that General Relativity admitted the possibility of the black hole, but, on the contrary, claimed that it excludes the black hole. I refer you to his paper "On a stationary system with spherical symmetry consisting of many gravitating masses", Annals of Mathematics, Vol 40,

No. 4, October, 1939. In the penultimate paragraph of that paper Einstein says,

"The essential result of this investigation is a clear understanding as to why the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality."

In other words, according to Einstein, black holes do not exist.

I also refer you to the paper by Einstein and Rosen, "The particle problem in the general theory of relativity", Physical Review, Vol. 48, July 1, 1935, wherein they state,

"For these reasons writers have occasionally noted the possibility that material particles might be considered as singularities of the field. This point of view, however, we cannot accept at all. For a singularity brings so much arbitrariness into the theory that it actually nullifies its laws."

And further, that

"Every field theory, in our opinion, must therefore adhere to the fundamental principle that singularities of the field are to be excluded."

Nonetheless, the article cited above would have us believe that Einstein not only accepted the idea of the black hole, but worked on its physics! Is this honest? Is it competent?

And here is another gem. I remark that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is

meaningless, because it requires, by application of Euler's theorem, the existence of a 1st order intrinsic differential invariant, depending only upon the components of the metric tensor and their 1st derivatives; but, as has been proved long ago (in 1900) by the pure mathematicians (Ricci and Levi-Civita), such an invariant does not exist! Therefore, Einstein’s pseudo-tensor cannot be used to substantiate anything at all; let alone the localisation of gravitational energy, but curiously, that has not stopped the physicists from using it to do so. Is that competent? Is it honest?

It is about time the relativists came back to reality and the art of rational conjecture, instead of peddling falsehoods to all and sundry for vainglory, self-aggrandizement and money.

Stephen J. Crothers

thenarmis@yahoo.com

15th June 2006

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Black holes and scientific fraud

Loading...

Similar Threads for Black holes scientific | Date |
---|---|

I Radiation of matter "free falling" into the black hole | Tuesday at 6:38 AM |

I Rotating black hole with a ring | Monday at 2:54 PM |

I Light coming out of a black hole | Mar 13, 2018 |

I Black hole event horizon confusion | Mar 8, 2018 |

Black Holes - Scientific Literature | Feb 19, 2011 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**