BENEFITS OF BECOMING A **GS JOURNAL MEMBER**
LEARN MORE

**Author:**

Crothers, Stephen J.

**Category:**

Research Papers

**Sub-Category:**

Mathematical Physics

**Language:**

English

**Date Published:**

August 1, 2015

**Downloads:**

328

**Keywords:**

N/A

**Abstract:**

Cosmologists claim that they have found black holes all over the Cosmos. The black hole is however entirely a product of mathematics. The simplest case is the ‘Schwarzschild’ black hole, from the solution to Einstein’s field equations in the absence of matter, for a static, uncharged, non-rotating mass. “In the absence of matter” involves linguistic legerdemain, but in any event all types of black holes reduce, mathematically speaking, to a very simple question: Can a squared real number take values less than zero? Symbolically this is restated as follows. Let r be any real number. Is r2 < 0 possible? No, it’s not possible. Thus, the black hole is not possible. Anybody who can square a real number is capable of understanding why the black hole is a fantasy of mathematical physicists and cosmologists, illustrating once again why it can be very dangerous to put trust in the word of an Authority.

We have a time-dependent scaling factor a (t) ... Then we differentiate that by the time a(t) dot ... Then we apply intelligence and we obtain a(t) proportional to t^2/3 that at some point of time exceeds to a(t) proportional to t^1/2. Therefore, by differentiating we get to the breaking function is the basis of the Big Bang theory !!! This is basically a process of distinguished professor a representative of the big bang. With the usual mathematical skills one engineer I learned that the breaking function is not differentiable.

Perhaps representatives of the big bang have information regarding the differentiability of scaling factor, but I have not found anywhere that they look back on this detail?

Please comment.

Regards,

Branko

Perhaps representatives of the big bang have information regarding the differentiability of scaling factor, but I have not found anywhere that they look back on this detail?

Please comment.

Regards,

Branko

1 Replies

Dear Branko,

The Big Bang cosmology, although directly not treated in my article, is however relevant. The Big Bangers have inextricably intertwined their black holes with their big bangs, and so without their black holes their big bangs are dead. There are three alleged types of Big Bang universes, each having a different constant k-curvature. If k = -1 the universe's 'spacetime' is negatively curved and spatially infinite yet allegedly expanding. However, that which is infinite cannot expand because it is infinite so the scale factor R(t) is meaningless. If k = 0 the universe's spacetime is flat and spatially infinite, yet expanding. However, that which is infinite cannot expand because it is infinite, and so the scale factor R(t) is meaningless. If k = 1 the universe's spacetime is positively curved and spatially finite and expanding. But a black hole universe is one that contains only one mass and is spatially infinite. The universe contains more than one mass, and a spatially infinite spacetime cannot be located inside a spatially finite spacetime. So the scale factor R(t) of the big bangers is again meaningless.

The Big Bang cosmology, although directly not treated in my article, is however relevant. The Big Bangers have inextricably intertwined their black holes with their big bangs, and so without their black holes their big bangs are dead. There are three alleged types of Big Bang universes, each having a different constant k-curvature. If k = -1 the universe's 'spacetime' is negatively curved and spatially infinite yet allegedly expanding. However, that which is infinite cannot expand because it is infinite so the scale factor R(t) is meaningless. If k = 0 the universe's spacetime is flat and spatially infinite, yet expanding. However, that which is infinite cannot expand because it is infinite, and so the scale factor R(t) is meaningless. If k = 1 the universe's spacetime is positively curved and spatially finite and expanding. But a black hole universe is one that contains only one mass and is spatially infinite. The universe contains more than one mass, and a spatially infinite spacetime cannot be located inside a spatially finite spacetime. So the scale factor R(t) of the big bangers is again meaningless.

Perhaps representatives of the big bang have information regarding the differentiability of scaling factor, but I have not found anywhere that they look back on this detail?

Please comment.

Regards,

Branko

Dear Steven,

Thanks for your comments.

The black hole is a product entire of invalid mathematics and wishful thinking. Consequently it is a fantasy and cannot be used to explain anything. The routine invocation of black holes is therefore completely false since they do not exist. People who believe in ghosts assign the action of ghosts to that which they don't understand. Cosmologists are no different, they merely believe in black holes (and big bangs) and assign their equally ghostly black holes to that which they don't understand. So their 'accretion discs' their 'jets' their 'Hawking radiation' etc. are not signs of black holes at all, just as they are not signs of unicorns, nor kangaroo droppings the sign of Big Foot. The cosmologists all need to go back to the drawing board and employ rational thought instead of the mysticism and superstition they have used to date.

I have no theories about anything. But it is certain that black holes and big bangs are thoroughly the figments of irrational imagination masquerading as science.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Crothers

Thanks for your comments.

The black hole is a product entire of invalid mathematics and wishful thinking. Consequently it is a fantasy and cannot be used to explain anything. The routine invocation of black holes is therefore completely false since they do not exist. People who believe in ghosts assign the action of ghosts to that which they don't understand. Cosmologists are no different, they merely believe in black holes (and big bangs) and assign their equally ghostly black holes to that which they don't understand. So their 'accretion discs' their 'jets' their 'Hawking radiation' etc. are not signs of black holes at all, just as they are not signs of unicorns, nor kangaroo droppings the sign of Big Foot. The cosmologists all need to go back to the drawing board and employ rational thought instead of the mysticism and superstition they have used to date.

I have no theories about anything. But it is certain that black holes and big bangs are thoroughly the figments of irrational imagination masquerading as science.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Crothers

I really enjoyed your paper, also read your other referenced papers. The problem that scientists are dealing with is how to accurately describe observations with words and mathematics and make verifiable predictions.

The evidence for "black holes" are X-ray jets, accretion discs, and disturbances in the motion of nearby stars.

How do you explain these observations? Admittedly, the "established theory" has a lot t of semantic and mathematical errors, but it does a generally good job of describing the phenomena. In your papers, you eloquently point out these errors but you don't give an alternative conceptual model.

I largely agree with your POV, but what is the alternative?

If "black holes" don't really exist, what is causing these phenomena?

Regards,

Steven

The evidence for "black holes" are X-ray jets, accretion discs, and disturbances in the motion of nearby stars.

How do you explain these observations? Admittedly, the "established theory" has a lot t of semantic and mathematical errors, but it does a generally good job of describing the phenomena. In your papers, you eloquently point out these errors but you don't give an alternative conceptual model.

I largely agree with your POV, but what is the alternative?

If "black holes" don't really exist, what is causing these phenomena?

Regards,

Steven

2 Replies

Thanks for your comments.

The black hole is a product entire of invalid mathematics and wishful thinking. Consequently it is a fantasy and cannot be used to explain anything. The routine invocation of black holes is therefore completely false since they do not exist. People who believe in ghosts assign the action of ghosts to that which they don't understand. Cosmologists are no different, they merely believe in black holes (and big bangs) and assign their equally ghostly black holes to that which they don't understand. So their 'accretion discs' their 'jets' their 'Hawking radiation' etc. are not signs of black holes at all, just as they are not signs of unicorns, nor kangaroo droppings the sign of Big Foot. The cosmologists all need to go back to the drawing board and employ rational thought instead of the mysticism and superstition they have used to date.

I have no theories about anything. But it is certain that black holes and big bangs are thoroughly the figments of irrational imagination masquerading as science.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Crothers

Thanks for your comments.

The black hole is a product entire of invalid mathematics and wishful thinking. Consequently it is a fantasy and cannot be used to explain anything. The routine invocation of black holes is therefore completely false since they do not exist. People who believe in ghosts assign the action of ghosts to that which they don't understand. Cosmologists are no different, they merely believe in black holes (and big bangs) and assign their equally ghostly black holes to that which they don't understand. So their 'accretion discs' their 'jets' their 'Hawking radiation' etc. are not signs of black holes at all, just as they are not signs of unicorns, nor kangaroo droppings the sign of Big Foot. The cosmologists all need to go back to the drawing board and employ rational thought instead of the mysticism and superstition they have used to date.

I have no theories about anything. But it is certain that black holes and big bangs are thoroughly the figments of irrational imagination masquerading as science.

Yours faithfully,

Steve Crothers

**4** total records on 1 pages