Schwarzschild's radius inquiry

  • #1

Main Question or Discussion Point

Good afternoon everyone,

I'm not sure where to post this, or if it is worth your wild to answer such an inquiry. I am not into the physics & quantum mechanics formulas and being able to figure them out as many of you, however I am finding myself requiring some assistance in the field of Schwarzschild's radius. I am a member of Space.com where we discuss many of the new discoveries, and other scientific topics. Recently a member has visited our site with an open contradiction to the interpretation of Schwarzschild's radius and how it's been misused by astrophysicists over the last 90 years. Laying insult to names such as Hawking, Penrose, and Chandrasekhar. Below I have included a post this individual has made indicating apparent evidence to prove black holes don't exist. Of course I dismiss his claims. However, is there any formula to indicate the contrary and lay this argument to rest? If you can help, it would very much be appreciated.

noblackhole said:
by noblackhole » Mon Apr 06, 2009 6:15 am
Claims have been made here that Antoci, Abrams and Crothers have been proven wrong by relativists that have more knowledge of mathematics than does the claimant, and the claimant seems to agree with his unnamed and unreferenced relativists. But not knowing enough mathematics by his admission, one wonders how that claimant can make a judgment at all.

There are also claims made here that K. Schwarzschild is responsible for the black hole and that he drew various conclusions for them, etc. etc. These claims are patently false. In fact, the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is not even Schwarzschild's solution. Schwarzschild's actual solution precludes the notion of a black hole. Schwarzschild did not breathe a single word about the black hole, and not by any other name either. This is easily verified by reading Schwarzschild's actual paper, which can be obtained here:

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

Most who talk of black holes and Karl Schwarzschild have never even seen his actual paper and don't even know his actual solution, instead taking for granted what they are told by other people who have never read Schwarzschild's actual paper, and accept all the demonstrable falsehoods that have been attributed to Schwarzschild by the very same people who have never seen Schwarzschild's actual paper and no not of his solution.

Here also is a recent paper that explains the facts in full:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/DPS-paper.pdf

Any discussion about black holes must first be based upon the facts, not the authority of people who do not know the facts, but pretend that they do, no matter how adept those 'authorities' might be at index raising and lowering.
Many of us believe this noblackhole individual to be Mr. Crothers as his attitude, choices or words, etc... all seem to match that of Mr. Crothers from these links. Thank you, again.
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
atyy
Science Advisor
13,717
1,747
Try footnote 8, p43 of 't Hooft's http://www.phys.uu.nl/~thooft/lectures/genrel.pdf [Broken]. Generally it helps to use coordinate-independent geometric invariants in interpreting the formulas, rather than coordinates alone.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #3
I'm not really good at this sort of mathematics, nor it's interpretation. My forte is more history then anything. I just don't believe noblackhole is correct that every astrophysicist for the last 90 years is wrong. We have so many things pointing to the existence of black holes, it's nearly impossible for them not to exist.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
28,903
5,165
Hi TheOneRaven welcome to PF,

I agree with atyy on the importance of coordinate-independent geometric invariants. But I would like to add that it doesn't really matter if Schwarzschild himself in his seminal paper actually understood the nature of the event horizon in terms of geometric invariants any more than it matters if Einstein in his seminal paper understood the time dilation in terms of invariants. These seminal works, despite their historical importance and genius, are not considered the "final word" on any of these subjects. Regardless of Schwarzschild's opinion it is mathematically provable that black holes (as the term is used today) are solutions to the Einstein field equations. Of course, the EFE could be wrong, that is what observation and experiment is for.

Here are a series of links that cover what it meant by the term "black hole", and some observational evidence supporting them. To date I would not say that the evidence is conclusive, but I would say that it is reasonably strong.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9801252
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0510072
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701228
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310692
http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.4365
 
  • #5
5,601
39
Coincidentally, I am reading Kip Thorne's BLACK HOLES AND TIME WARPS and in Chapter's 5 and 6 he follows the historical development of black hole physics...it has a number of interesting historical insights and a number of famous and not so famous contributors to expanding Schwarzschild's mathematics...must go on for 50 pages or so.....and Dalespam's post above properly reflects the relative unimportance of Schwarszchild's initial understanding...

for one thing a "Schwarzschild singularity" for many years meant what is now called the event horizon..."Black Hole' was not even in the vernacular at the time....in particular, an assistant professor from Stevens Institute, Hoboken,NJ, David Finkelstein discovered somewhat by chance a new reference frame which gave a totally new perspective on stellar implosions (page 245)...the now familiar dichotomy of a faraway static observer on one hand and an observer riding in with the imploding star was explained....the former sees a freezing of the implosion (as infinite time appears at the event horizon and everything slows to a standstill) while the latter observes continued implosion from the star's surface....

for the time being, I'll stick with the dozens and likely hundreds of physicists and mathematicians who have studied the detailed mathematics rather than Mr. Crothers....
 
  • #6
Thank you very much. Some of those equations might come in handy deferring conspiracy theorists :)
 

Related Threads for: Schwarzschild's radius inquiry

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
948
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
456
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
625
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
15K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
375
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
745
Top