Subject: “Exploding a Myth” by Jeremy Dunning-Davies
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 03:27:20 EDT
It might usefully be remarked that Einstein’s own paper of 1939 in the Annals of Mathematics itself casts doubt on the notion of a black hole. This seems to support the earlier work and this became apparent to some immediately Schwarzschild’s original paper was translated into English - for this the scientific community owes a debt of gratitude to Angelo Loinger. The big problem here, however, is the refusal toi engage in open discussion and it is, unfortunately, not only in this area of science that this unscientific behaviour occurs. It is for this reason that, drawing on my own experiences, I have written a book - ‘Exploding a Myth’ - which is due out shortly and discusses this very issue of conventional wisdom. The examples discussed are all from the field of Physics and include the Big Bang and Black Holes, especially the Thermodynamics of Black Holes. The treatment of stephen Crothers has been disgraceful but let it not be forgotten that others have suffered at the hands of the scientific mafia for years. Careers have been ruined, promotions stopped and all in the name of conventional wisdom. This concept is a totally unnecessary evil and, for the good of science as a whole, its influence must be reduced.
Stephen Crothers arguments concerning the Big Bang and Black Holes may not be the whole story but they are undoubtedly correct. That is probably why so many with deep vested interests attack him so vigorously, either directly or, more probably, through intermediaries. Jeremy Dunning-Davies. PS Stephen, can you forward this into the discussion please? _____________________________________________________
—–Original Message—–
Sent: 28 May 2007 16:49
office Maths G57 (020) 7882 5445; EMyrone] at [aol.com
cafeinst] at [msn.com; carlip] at [physics.ucdavis.edu; charlesbert_99] at [yahoo.com; dgb] at [physics.uwa.edu.au; eitgaastra] at [freeler.nl; fsmarandache] at [yahoo.com; garethjohnevans] at [hotmail.co.uk; geesquared] at [gmail.com; hans.montanus] at [wxs.nl; HorstEck] at [aol.com; intuitionist1] at [yahoo.com; j.dunning-davies] at [hull.ac.uk; kip] at [tapir.caltech.edu; lborissova] at [yahoo.com; rabounski] at [ptep-online.com; rmwa] at [uchicago.edu; robitaille.1] at [osu.edu; rward] at [ligo.caltech.edu; spherical_symmetry] at [yahoo.com; stanrobertson] at [itlnet.net; twidlar] at [yahoo.com; vladimir.petrov] at [ihep.ru; vxianto] at [yahoo.com; williams.robyn] at [abc.net.au; WMitch8493] at [aol.com; angelo.loinger] at [mi.infn.it; antoci] at [fisicavolta.unipv.it
Subject: Re: Sydney Conference in July - MacCallum's folly
MacCallum,
I note your remark,
"I repeat that the portion of Crothers' work that I have looked at carefully and which had to do with the Schwarzschild metric is definitely wrong."
Now that is a particularly interesting claim you have made, since you haven't even addressed Schwarzschild's solution. Let's get to the facts of the matter. You say that Schwarzschild's solution admits of a "black hole". That is impossible, as is easily verified by reading Schwarzschild's own paper, wherein his solution is well defined on 0
www.geocities.com/theometria/schwarzschild.pdf
Please enlighten us all as to where Karl Schwarzschild made a mistake, since he did not breathe a single word about the absurd black hole - because his solution precludes that nonsense.
Marcel Brillouin proved, in 1923, that Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole. Here is Brillouin's paper:
www.geocities.com/theometria/brillouin.pdf
Note that Brillouin's line element is well defined on 0
The solution that you erroneously call Schwarzschild's solution has no black hole. Here is Johannes Droste's 1917 paper (solution obtained in May 1916):
www.geosities.com/theometria/Droste.pdf
Please enlighten us all as to where Johannes Droste made a mistake. Note carefully his remarks about non-static solution to a static problem (your precious "black hole"), and his remarks on transformations.
The solution you call Schwarzschild's solution, from which you and your colleagues get your mystical black hole, is Hilbert's (December 1916) corruption of Droste's solution (and also of Schwarzschild's solution). Here is Hilbert's blunder:
www.geocities.com/theometria/hilbert.pdf
The error in Hilbert's analysis is not difficult to see or understand. Enlighten us as to why Hilbert's blunder is not a blunder, and thereby why Karl Schwarzschild, Johannes Droste and Marcel Brillouin are simple-minded, as you and your colleagues would have us all believe.
The geometry of the line element that I have propounded is correct. Here is Schwarzschild's own application of the very same geometry
www.geocities.com/theometria/Schwarzschild2.pdf
There is no black hole. Please enlighten us as to where Karl Schwarzschild has made an error in elementary differential geometry.
That the alleged black hole has no escape velocity is plain. No object and no light can even leave the alleged black hole let alone escape. Nonetheless, that has not stopped the black holers frequently claiming that the "escape velocity" of a black hole is that of light in vacuo. Here is Prof. G. C. McVittie's straightforward explanation of the gross errors of Hawking and Ellis
www.geocities.com/theometria/McVittie.pdf
Please enlighten us as to where Prof. McVittie has made a mistake, and why Hawking and Ellis are so brilliant. Note also McVittie's poignant remarks about the stupidity of colliding or binary "black holes".
Here are some references for the fundamental geometry, which I have simply reiterated in my own papers. You will note that I did not invent the geometry, the pure mathematicians did that long ago, and some able physicists also know it too. I merely do what the mathematicians proved must be done. Please enlighten us all as to where these mathematicians and physicists have made mistakes in fundamental geometry, thereby convincing us all that you and your colleagues know geometry and the rest of us don't, since you disagree with all the above (except Hilbert, and the ridiculous Hawking and Ellis) and all the below, as your previous remarks testify.
1. T. Levi-Civita, The Absolute Differential Calculus, Dover Publications Inc. New York, 1977, pp. 408-414. Please enlighten us all as to where Professor Levi-Civita made a mistake concerning the geometric nature of a spherically symmetric metric manifold.
2. Landau and Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields, section 11.7, "The centrally symmetric gravitational field". Please enlighten us all as to why their expression for the determination of what they call "The distance from the centre to any point in space." (disregarding the limits on the integral) is not correct elementary differential geometry. Also see section 11.13 "Isotropic space" and their calculation (disregarding the limits on the integral) of "The 'radius' of a circle (or sphere) ." and their ". volume of a space with positive curvature ." (disregarding the limits on the integrals). Once again, please enlighten us all as to the folly for their fundamental differential geometry.
3. Richard C. Tolman, Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, Dover Publications Inc. New York, 1987, section 149 "General properties of the line element", pp. 370-372. Please enlighten us all as to why Tolman's elementary differential geometry is not correct (disregarding the limits on the integrals). See also section 15, "The geometry corresponding to space-time" Please enlighten us all as to why Tolman's statements concerning the nature of the geometry are not correct.
4. Foster and Nightingale, A Short Course in General Relativity, 2nd Ed, Springer, 1995, section 4.1 "Length and time", pp. 125-129. Also note example 4.1.2. Please enlighten us all as to why the basic geometry they have expounded is not correct.
5. Joseph Weber, General Relativity and Gravitational Waves, Dover Publications Inc. New York, 2004, section 9.1, p. 165. Note Weber's calculation of the "radius". Please enlighten us all as to why Weber's elementary differential geometry is not correct (disregarding the limits on the integral).
I suppose you will ignore all of the foregoing, as usual, as you have stated, again to me in private, that you will not respond unless you are misquoted. Very convenient I'm sure, but the facts still speak for themselves.
Crothers --- "Malcolm MacCallum,(home - 020 8989 8188) or QMUL office Maths G57 (020) 7882 5445" wrote:
> > It has been admitted by Mac Callum that Crothers' > mathematics are correct, > repeat correct. > > No. No . No! > What I said was that the manipulations that I had > checked that could be checked > by computer algebra were correct. There is much > matehmatics that is not > amenable to computer algebra and it is in those > areas that Crothers' errors > lie. A relevant example is that one cannot prove by > a sequence of equations > that a reasonable set of functions (e.g. infinitely > differentiable) > on an interval [a,b] with fixed values at the > endpoints is uncountable. > > I repeat that the portion of Crothers’ work that I > have looked at carefully > and which had to do with the Schwarzschild metric is > definitely wrong. Until > or unless he proves capable of understanding those > errors and withdrawing > his incorrect statements I am not prepared to write > further multi-page > detailed criticisms of his other claims. > > In no way do I endorse any of Crothers’ claims, and > to assert that I did is > misrepresentation. Do not repeat it > > > Malcolm MacCallum >
This is more evidence of severe, endemic and chronic corruption in academia. I advise legislatures to curtail or completely suspend funding for scientific nonsense and to re-organize the whole science funding scene through a Reform Act. A lot of evidence is available on _www.aias.us_ (http://www.aias.us) , including Crothers’ papers censored by the Institute of Physics. The latter uses wholly untrained secretarial staff to censor papers of originality. Arbitrary censorship is a technique used basically to destroy the careers of those with whom the standard model protagonists do not agree, or as in the case of Crothers, those who have shown basic flaws in long accepted theory. It is these very same original thinkers that advance science in every generation. In other words the standard model elite are there only for the money they can get out of the tax payer. This money is urgently needed in areas of real science. They can take so much money because there is not enough control over councils such as PPARC (the really heavy spendthrift) by legislatures. The Reform Act would also allow appeal to legislatures and ombudsmen by those so savagely wronged in the past. Oligarchies in society constantly try to undermine democracy, a prime example being freemansonry. However, oligarchy takes many different forms. I would encourage Stephen Crothers to write a book for Abramis.
Civil List Scientist.
cc Welsh Assembly