What is known about this Crothers?
kluto
recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity,
whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away,
that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection
with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional
mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a
library assistant. I began to doubt the former, after reading some of
his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it
comes to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true
though of phycisists in general who are not specialists. There seem to
be some publications around on library related issues which have
Crothers as a coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study
with a professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself.
Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a
physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then
why is he constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity?
eric gisse
> I am lecturing a two semester course in Differential Geometry, and I
> recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity,
> whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away,
> that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection
> with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional
> mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a
> library assistant.
Stephen J. Crothers flunked out of his PhD program some years back, and
carries one hell of a chip on his shoulder about it.
How on earth did this guy's name come up in your searches?
> I began to doubt the former, after reading some of
> his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it
> comes to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true
> though of phycisists in general who are not specialists.
His interpretations are asinine.
What's great about Crothers is that not only is he super obvious about his
antisemitism, as he took the time to publish a poorly sourced book it, but
that he also takes the time to post correspondence that makes him look like
a moron.
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Kerr.pdf
I am of like mind with Roy Kerr.
> There seem to
> be some publications around on library related issues which have
> Crothers as a coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study
> with a professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself.
> Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a
> physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then
> why is he constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity?
The only people who speak of Crothers in a positive manner are those who
have an axe to grind against jews, relativity, Einstein specifically, or
science in general. You had to ask your question in a newsgroup that is
largely populated by people who wouldn't even know their ass from a hole in
the ground if they sat in on your lectures on differential geometry.
If you want some decent resources for general relativity, stay the fuck off
the internet. Assclowns like Crothers have all the time in the world and a
platform to spout their idiocies.
If you want to give your students a reasonable introduction to general
relativity, I would suggest Sean Carroll's lecture notes on the subject.
dlzc
On Jan 2, 4:59 am, eric gisse <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
> Stephen J. Crothers flunked out of his PhD
> program some years back, and carries one hell
> of a chip on his shoulder about it.
>
> How on earth did this guy's name come up in
> your searches?
The same way EinsteinHoax's name comes up. They (or their followers)
post a lot, and depending on search engine, obtain more hits. One of
the reasons EinsteinHoax posts everywhere... cheap advertising.
David A. Smith
kluto
> Stephen J. Crothers flunked out of his PhD program some years back, and
> carries one hell of a chip on his shoulder about it.
>
> How on earth did this guy's name come up in your searches?
It is a relief if this does not happen to everybody. I recall
now that I recommended a lecture series by Leonard Susskind from
youtube to my students. There were fewer lectures in the series
than I had thought, and I began to look for additional material.
On youtube there was a video on GR posted which turned out to be
nonsensical and it featured Crothers. So I did a Google search on
Crothers then, to see what this was all about. I guess that that
is the reason why Google keeps feeding me results related to this
guy.
> If you want some decent resources for general relativity, stay the fuck off
> the internet. Assclowns like Crothers have all the time in the world and a
> platform to spout their idiocies.
The lectures at Stanford by Susskind on "Physics for Old People"
are actually not bad. It is basic stuff, but okay for my students
most of whom are not physics students.
> If you want to give your students a reasonable introduction to general
> relativity, I would suggest Sean Carroll's lecture notes on the subject.
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9712019
Thanx, I have taken note of your suggestion.
So my original question seems hard to answer. Is Crothers a
library assistant essentially without any academic credentials
but pretending to be a mathematician and a physicist? Or is he
actually a "professional mathematician", and if so, what is his
affiliation, where did he achieve his PhD, and what did he do
in it? And/or is he a "physicist" without a PhD, and if so,
where did he achieve his Masters degree in physics, and in which
field?
eric gisse
[...]
>
> So my original question seems hard to answer. Is Crothers a
> library assistant essentially without any academic credentials
> but pretending to be a mathematician and a physicist?
Current occupation unknown but the pretend part is correct.
> Or is he
> actually a "professional mathematician", and if so, what is his
> affiliation, where did he achieve his PhD, and what did he do
He did not achieve his PhD.
Koobee Wublee
That is a typical conversation between two Einstein Dingleberries who
know nothing better other than the intoxicating taste of fermented
diarrhea from Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
Wow! Did yours truly fully get your attention or what?
Yes, the so-called specialists in this subject get to their
specialized positions by thoroughly exploiting the following Orwellian
doctrines.
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
Since it is absolutely impossible to describe any geometry without
agreeing on a specific set of coordinate system first, any astute
student of physics should easily understand the following. This
understanding is easily categorized under grade school level that is
under 6th grade.
** Geometry is invariant. The geometry is what it is regardless of
one's chosen coordinate system. <shrug>
** The coordinate system alone cannot possibly describe the invariant
geometry.
** Knowing the choice of coordinate system, it takes the so-called
metric to fully describe the geometry.
Consider the following geometry,
** ds^2 = g_ij dq^i dq^j
Where
** ds = Invariant geometry
** g_ij = Elements to the metric [g]
** dq^i, dq^j = Coordinate
It becomes ever so obvious that the metric [g] with elements g_ij
alone cannot possibly describe the geometry ds. For example, under
flat spacetime,
** [g1] = [1 0 0]
[0 1 0]
[0 0 1] with d[q] = [dx, dy, dz]
** [g2] = [1 0 0]
[0 r^2 cos^2(Latitude) 0]
[0 0 r^2] with d[q] = [dr, dLongitude, dLatitude]
[g1] and [g2] are drastically different, but because of the also very
different choices of coordinate systems that the described geometry is
exactly the same. This concept has no problem to be understood by
grade school kids, but the so-called specialists are drastically at
lost due to the said Orwellian doctrines above. What a pity!
2,500 years in China, there existed two great philosophers. One was
Mozi.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozi
He preached inner perfection. As related to what we are discussing,
Mozi urged all to understand the subject by oneself. On the contrary,
Confucius was preaching one must rely on someone who is supposed to
possess higher intelligence to think for oneself. Well, in an ideal
world, that is fine, but in reality, the supposed specialists are as
dumb as the special rocks displaced in any museum. It becomes so
problematic to allow someone who is as dumb as or dumber than you are
to think for you. Well, China had the greatest technological
achievements, but they adopted Confucianism instead of Mozi's
teachings in the past few thousands of years. Guess what that got
themselves in today.
The whole exercise revolves around how to deal with the infinite
numbers of solutions to the field equations that are static,
spherically symmetric, and asymptotically flat. Schwarzschild had
years of research before the field equations were presented by Hilbert
and plagiarized by Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar.
Schwarzschild discovered that the field equations (namely the Ricci
tensor) can be drastically simplified if the metric yields a
determinant of -1. So, he sought out to covert the common spherically
symmetric polar coordinate system into one that would yield the
determinant of its metric to be of -1. After obtaining the solution,
he must covert it back and did so to the common spherically polar
coordinate system. The result was totally different from the
Schwarzschild metric. Schwarzschild's original solution does not
manifest black holes. It was Hilbert who discovered that indeed there
were an infinite solutions to the field equations. In doing so, he
wrote down the Schwarzschild metric. Disappointed, Hilbert then
walked away from all that nonsense and allowed Einstein the nitwit,
the plagiarist, and the liar to take full credit.
Well, as I understand it, Mr. Crothers discovered anther solution
below to the field equations that does not manifest black holes. He
is merely demonstrating that his solution is truer that the
Schwarzschild metric.
ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 K / r) - (1 + 2 K / r) dr^2 - (r + K)^2 dO^2
Where
** K = G M / c^2
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2
In the meantime, the Schwarzschild metric below is also a solution.
ds^2 = c^2 (1 - 2 K / r) dt^2 - dr^2 / (1 - 2 K / r) - r^2 dO^2
There is no known boundary condition that allows one to settle on Mr.
Crother's metric over the Schwarzschild metric and vice versa. So,
Mr. community college teacher, you must be a follower of Confucius.
<shrug>
kluto
My question actually wasn't about your inner perfection.
More modestly, it was about how to explain you to my students.
Perhaps as a professional mathematician, and in that case in
which field of specialty. Or as a physicist, and in that case
in which field of specialty. Or as a library assistant, and a
social science graduate.
Good that you are here to clear it up once and for all.
Ace0f_5pades
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK sam, give me an hour or two to think about it. ,
PrivatePlayground, or abo.
What is known about this Crothers?
generally, the choice of cartesian is limited.... and slow your
horses.
To think for you?
While it is true that many quarters have been longstanding, a house is
supported by its own beams. It seems a limited application to apply
the rules of cram to a house... and find that it not burst its seams.
It would seem that your problem is an application of the law/rule.
If your society has fallen to the realm of Mozi, or Confucius, then
you have missed the true dynamic.
The rule for all society is to take the best of the time, and not
indoctrinate yourself silly. Hindsight proves useful in known cases,
However, it seems the stick used to measure is the real issue.
Consider a society that has chosen to take free liberties without
restraint... where did that lead?
In the best and most productive societies, I suspect it has to be
about give and take... a little compromise at a time. An interesting
result of allowing small compromises is that one extends ones limited
world view. ALWAYS
regarding the house, some things need to stand strong. if you think
its an easy task, then I submit that your first small compromise to be
total excess in restraint (or perhaps just as an exercise). We are
after all, allowing ones right to choose; This doesn't even yet
approach the subject of math.. i.e. There will always be moral
delemas in the establishing of societal hierarchies
Lets have a look at the institution of brotherhood... I remember ones
societies most outstanding argument for society was " individual
pursuits " being the governing factor for all encounters. In a
society where individuals sort out a brotherhood for its privileges,
theres no problem. Now add limited resources, and competition for
favour, and now your governing principle begins to crack under the
strain. It can even grow to the point of total structural breakdown.
this in no way reveals you though, how could one discourse get to the
real heart of the issue. But thats the other benefit of compromise,
one will eventually reach it... On both sides of the equation.
As for the math,
ofcourse geometry is invariant, but structure is always forms of
geometry. And the real art is in the structure.
don't be so fast to only advocate the cartesian coordination.
eric gisse
> Hi Stephen, we were just talking about you.
That is not Crothers. Crothers has too much ego to hide behind a pseudonym
like that.
Koobee Wublee
> OK sam, give me an hour or two to think about it. ,
> PrivatePlayground, or abo.
Sam, who? Private playground? I have no idea as to what you are
talking about. <shrug>
> What is known about this Crothers?
Who cares?
> generally, the choice of cartesian is limited.... and slow your
> horses.
We are on a very bad start. <shrug>
> To think for you?
No, thanks. The rest of nonsense snipped.
Koobee Wublee
> kluto wrote:
> > I am lecturing a two semester course in Differential Geometry, and I
> > recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity,
> > whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away,
> > that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection
> > with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional
> > mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a
> > library assistant.
>
> Stephen J. Crothers flunked out of his PhD program some years back, and
> carries one hell of a chip on his shoulder about it.
Did you make that up after yourself being a failure of education --- a
college dropout?
> How on earth did this guy's name come up in your searches?
You are so bitter being a college dropout. <shrug>
> > I began to doubt the former, after reading some of
> > his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it
> > comes to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true
> > though of phycisists in general who are not specialists.
>
> His interpretations are asinine.
Your understanding is utterly wrong. <shrug>
> What's great about Crothers is that not only is he super obvious about his
> antisemitism,
I think anyone bringing up the word 'antisemitism' should be sued for
that. The ilk's like you cannot offer any more honorable arguments
and resort to punching below the belt. <shrug>
> as he took the time to publish a poorly sourced book it, but
> that he also takes the time to post correspondence that makes him look like
> a moron.
>
> http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/Kerr.pdf
Mr. Kerr did not say very much in that response. There is nothing
that Mr. Kerr has said in that conversation that embarrassed Mr.
Crothers. <shrug>
> I am of like mind with Roy Kerr.
Yeah, being a vegetable who has said nothing useful. Now, please go
away.
> > There seem to
> > be some publications around on library related issues which have
> > Crothers as a coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study
> > with a professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself.
> > Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a
> > physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then
> > why is he constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity?
>
> The only people who speak of Crothers in a positive manner are those who
> have an axe to grind against jews, relativity, Einstein specifically, or
> science in general.
Hmmm... It does not matter how you whine about your asinine
accusations. Einstein remains a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar.
Hell, even your Jew buddy --- that Russian dude who took over an
honest working farmer's land in Palestine is trashing Einstein more so
than any others. <shrug>
> You had to ask your question in a newsgroup that is
> largely populated by people who wouldn't even know their ass from a hole in
> the ground if they sat in on your lectures on differential geometry.
The academics are populated by the so-called specialists who cannot
understand the basics that grade school kids can. <shrug>
> If you want some decent resources for general relativity, stay the fuck off
> the internet. Assclowns like Crothers have all the time in the world and a
> platform to spout their idiocies.
That is not a wise advice. With the advent of internet, all skeletons
in the closets come out to tell their sides of stories since there are
always two sides to each story. You are still a college dropout. You
prefer to stay in vegetated state, remember? To possibly assess the
validity of one claim, you must examine as many evidences as
possible. <shrug>
> If you want to give your students a reasonable introduction to general
> relativity, I would suggest Sean Carroll's lecture notes on the subject.
>
> http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/gr-qc/9712019
You got to be kidding. Very, very few kids would even understand the
mathematics in that. The lecture repeats all the errors brought up by
these self-styled physicists in the past hundred years. Since these
kids would not be able to understand all that, they would just resort
to mysticism just like yourself and the self-styled physicists in the
past hundred years. Remember the Orwellian teachings that Orwell had
so pointed out:
** FAITH IS THEORY
** LYING IS TEACHING
** NITWIT IS GENIUS
** OCCULT IS SCIENCE
** PARADOX IS KOSHER
** BULLSHIT IS TRUTH
** BELIEVING IS LEARNING
** IGNORANCE IS KNOWLEDGE
** MYSTICISM IS WISDOM
** CONJECTURE IS REALITY
** PLAGIARISM IS CREATIVITY
** MATHEMAGICS IS MATHEMATICS
<shrug>
noblackhole
Crothers is maligned here in the most dishonest of terms; just plain
lies. The fact is he has himself reported in full the issues
surrounding his PhD. Here is the relevant website:
www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html
Crothers is not a library assistant and never was. He did not "flunk"
his PhD because he was prevented from submitting his thesis by several
disgruntled professors at the University of New South Wales. One of
them, one Professor Chris Hamer, altered Crothers' work and upon that
alteration claimed that Crothers was wrong and with that Hamer and the
other cronies (including professors Couch and Webb) blocked Crothers'
PhD thesis submission. They even told Crothers that he had to change
his thesis topic if he wanted a PhD from UNSW. All this is reported by
Crothers in detail with irrefutable documentary evidence on the above
website.
Crothers holds a masters degree in astronomy, pass with distinction.
Telling lies about Crothers does not constitute a scientific argument.
--
noblackhole
Inertial
"noblackhole" <noblackho...@physicsbanter.com> wrote in message
news:noblackho...@physicsbanter.com...
Who gives a shit.
eric gisse
>
> Crothers is maligned here in the most dishonest of terms; just plain
> lies. The fact is he has himself reported in full the issues
> surrounding his PhD. Here is the relevant website:
>
> www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/PhD.html
>
> Crothers [...]
It'd help if you weren't wrong on most of your technical points, Stephen.
Also, for reference, acting like a knob to your advisor is a good way to not
get your PhD.
Inertial
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmhl47$lk9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Is it worth reading that link he posted (I am assuming the noblakchole is
actually this crothers person that noone else cares about, but is pretending
not to be). Is it amusing or in any way interesting?
Dono.
5d13...@physicsbanter.com> wrote:
>
> Crothers holds a masters degree in astronomy, pass with distinction.
>
True, yet he's a crackpot. And he's getting worse with age.
Inertial
"eric gisse" <jowr.pi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hmhl47$lk9$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Actually .. i just had a read. Seems like the crothers person is a rude
obnoxious jackass who thinks he knows more than all the professors combined,
cannot take constructive criticsm, and is overly full of his own importance.
Whether or not he was correct in his scientific analysis, I have no idea.
But it is no wonder he got expelled.
eric gisse
Correct.
Some of Crother's technical points are correct, eg his point that one of the
professors was incorrect in his guess about one of the metrics not being
Ricci-flat. However, most of them are not.
He does not understand the concept of conformal invariance, eg two metrics
related by a coordinate transformation describe the same manifold. But
that's almost ancillary to his complete lack of understanding of general
relativity. He know enough to plug and chug on some of the equations, but
his long whining article in Progress in Physics about 'misconceptions' that
'relativists' have about GR is not only comfortingly familiar but wrong in a
new and uninteresting way.
For example, he makes the claim that R_ab = 0 is equivalent to Minkowski
space. Which is wrong and stupid. He also makes the claim that 'infinite
energy' violates special relativity (???) and thus violates general
relativity (???!).
Just imagine kooby-wooby.
I'm rather hoping he'll come back so I can demolish his analysis one point
at a time. My current hobbies aren't cutting it.
Plus, how fucking STUPID would you have to be to behave this way to your
advisor and his colleagues? Jesus christ. No matter how snarky and acidic I
get, I can always at least keep it under a modicum of control. Not him.
lcsexp...@gmail.com
Einstein said his theory of relativity did not fit with reality and that black holes were not possible.
JanPB
with him a few times:
1. He is a nice fellow in person,
2. He doesn't understand differential geometry and how it's used in GR,
3. At one point he didn't know how to pronounce "Ricci".
It was a while ago but IIRC one of his standard mistakes is confusing
tensors with their coordinate expressions. Naturally from this one false
thing anything can (and does) logically follow, including his YouTube videos
:-)
--
Jan
David Waite
and worst of all he thinks earth's water has a spectrum for a temperature of 3k. What an idiot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t-7-rUyW3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
al...@interia.pl
So, he failed, because it was unavoidable. :)
David Waite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t-7-rUyW3I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk , question though, do you agree with his insanity that earth's water has a spectrum for a temperature of about 3K?
JanPB
his physics is wrong (which it is as well).
--
Jan
seoul2sou...@gmail.com
I am not defending Mr Crothers or any personal opinions he has of any ethnic group
but credentials can be overrated... in fact so many advances in science were made by those who would be considered non scientific...
better to attack flaws specifically..just saying
The Starmaker
The title of his book says it all:
https://www.amazon.com/Criticisms-Einstein-Field-Equation-Century/dp/1907343288?ie=UTF8&keywords=Myron%20Evans&qid=1419450862&ref_=sr_1_16&sr=8-16
There are 'movie critics', and the people who make movies don't like...movie critics. It keeps people from
watching their bad movies they put out.
Nature does not decides who should speak for it.
al...@interia.pl
> Crothers is a debunked anti-relativity crank just like you moron,
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t-7-rUyW3I
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk , question though, do you agree with his insanity that earth's water has a spectrum for a temperature of about 3K?
I'm anti of any - everything idiocy,
not only the special-general - relativistic.. like the Crothers is. :)
David Waite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
al...@interia.pl
You are wrong, and the Crothers too,
because the relativity is a stupid fallcy only,
no any alternative math/geometry exists.
David Waite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
al...@interia.pl
I'm very sorry, but it's a very sad story.. :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cg0cmhjdiLs
(
David Waite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
The Starmaker
David Waite
The Starmaker
David Waite
The Starmaker
Y
> I am lecturing a two semester course in Differential Geometry, and I
> recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity,
> whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away,
> that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection
> with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional
> mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a
> library assistant. I began to doubt the former, after reading some of
> his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it
> comes to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true
> though of phycisists in general who are not specialists. There seem to
> be some publications around on library related issues which have
> Crothers as a coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study
> with a professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself.
> Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a
> physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then
> why is he constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity?
Over the phone there are moments of pressured speech, but all in all, he seems open to discuss things and does not 'insist' upon the correctness of his claims.
Interpretations are an issue in science no matter how specialised an individual, but as I understand it Steven has lectured at the university of Sydney in mathematics. In my opinion, people like him are useful. He has assembled a legion of followers which only stands to make things more interesting, generate more argument interest and ambiguity (the primordial soup of idea generation).
On facebook I had a debate with one of his followers (Steven knows I'm a contrarian to his point of view), but he remained polite.
-y
David Waite
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
Y
-y
David Waite
Koobee Wublee
> On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11:59:40 PM UTC-7, Y wrote:
> > I have spoken with Steven Crothers over the phone as I am an educator
> > myself and he lives locally. I have nothing bad to say about him,
> > other than I disagree with his assertion that black holes do not exist.
** dS² = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j
Where
** dS = spacetime geometry
** [g] = matrix that represents the metric
** [q] = choice of coordinate system to describe dS
The metric [g] is what the geometry dS would have been described (perfectly +/- error bars in reality) by [q]. The Schwarzschild spacetime geometry clearly says any black hole can only exist in the infinite future according to an observer using [q] (such as earthlings) to describe the geometry (the cosmos). That means a black hole can never be observed according to the Schwarzschild geometry. Mr. Corther is right! <shrug>
> Sorry to say, but you're lunatic hero Crothers has already been debunked
> as a crackpot
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t-7-rUyW3I
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euLHLJoe7pA
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfuI6jECJxk
> and you're idiot buddy starmaker long since proven wrong on nature in
> that he's a typical idiot religionist.
Y
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:43:41 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11:59:40 PM UTC-7, Y wrote:
>
> > > I have spoken with Steven Crothers over the phone as I am an educator
> > > myself and he lives locally. I have nothing bad to say about him,
> > > other than I disagree with his assertion that black holes do not exist.
>
> Given the following general spacetime geometry,
>
> ** dS² = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j
>
> Where
>
> ** dS = spacetime geometry
> ** [g] = matrix that represents the metric
> ** [q] = choice of coordinate system to describe dS
>
> The metric [g] is what the geometry dS would have been described (perfectly +/- error bars in reality) by [q]. The Schwarzschild spacetime geometry clearly says any black hole can only exist in the infinite future according to an observer using [q] (such as earthlings) to describe the geometry (the cosmos). That means a black hole can never be observed according to the Schwarzschild geometry. Mr. Corther is right! <shrug>
>
Any black holes observed are observed non-locally. i.e. we do not observe the black hole directly, but the things around it and what they do. So I think the equation you rather require is this...
ds^2 = ψc^2.dt^2 − ψ^−1.dr^2 − r^2 (dθ^2 + sin^2(θ)dφ^2
where rs is the Schwarzschild radius, given by
rs = 2GM/c^2
and where,
φ = −GM/r
(otherwise classical grav potential).
The solution for falling into a black hole is given by,
ct = rs.ln(r0−rs/rt−rs)+r0-rt
So, how much time is required for a body falling into a black hole is given by
ct = lim_(rt→rs){rs.ln(r0-rs/rt-rs) + r0-rt} = ∞
So as you say and are correct in saying, "The Schwarzschild spacetime geometry clearly says any black hole can only exist in the infinite future"
However Koobee, this does NOT mean that black holes can not be indirectly observed. We can see things orbiting them, or being sucked into them dude, and we've just detected gravitational waves coming from them. There's some sense in being empirical about it I guess. But in these types of scenarios the evidence isn't correlative. There's no 'coefficient' to rely on for the black hole existence. We know what causes that kind of gravitational system. Black holes dude.
-y
David Waite
> On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 12:43:41 AM UTC-7, David Waite wrote:
> > On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 at 11:59:40 PM UTC-7, Y wrote:
>
> > > I have spoken with Steven Crothers over the phone as I am an educator
> > > myself and he lives locally. I have nothing bad to say about him,
> > > other than I disagree with his assertion that black holes do not exist.
>
> Given the following general spacetime geometry,
>
woah hold on you're that already debunked crackpot here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.physics.relativity/Vaidya/sci.physics.relativity/KbPmC4vUDXI/yGIbE6glBAAJ
Koobee Wublee
> On Thursday, June 16, 2016 at 4:27:54 PM UTC+10, Koobee Wublee wrote:
> > Given the following general spacetime geometry,
> >
> > ** dS² = [g]_ij d[q]^i d[q]^j
> >
> > Where
> >
> > ** dS = spacetime geometry
> > ** [g] = matrix that represents the metric
> > ** [q] = choice of coordinate system to describe dS
> >
> > The metric [g] is what the geometry dS would have been described
> > (perfectly +/- error bars in reality) by [q]. The Schwarzschild
> > spacetime geometry clearly says any black hole can only exist in
> > the infinite future according to an observer using [q] (such as
> > earthlings) to describe the geometry (the cosmos). That means a
> > black hole can never be observed according to the Schwarzschild
> > geometry. Mr. Corther is right! <shrug>
>
> Actually that's kind of right but its not the full solution or
> complete way of looking at the problem. The problem regards the
> difference between LOCAL and non-local observation of black holes.
> Any black holes observed are observed non-locally. i.e. we do not
> observe the black hole directly, but the things around it and what
> they do.
> So I think the equation you rather require is this...
>
> ds^2 = ψc^2.dt^2 − ψ^−1.dr^2 − r^2 (dθ^2 + sin^2(θ)dφ^2
> So this is my one and only offering to help clear it up.
> [rest of confusion snipped]
jeffrey....@yahoo.com
> I think modern cosmology has become dogmatic and bamboozled the masses for too long.
>
> Einstein said his theory of relativity did not fit with reality and that black holes were not possible.
Exactly. Einstein himself said schwarzchild singularities do not exist in physical reality. https://stellar-metamorphosis.blogspot.com/2019/06/some-einstein-stuff.html
Schäfer Brinkerhoff
> On Saturday, January 2, 2010 at 2:11:11 AM UTC-8, kluto wrote:
>> I am lecturing a two semester course in Differential Geometry, and I
>> recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity,
>> whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away,
>> that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection
>> with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional
>> mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a
>> library assistant. I began to doubt the former, after reading some of
>> his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it comes
>> to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true though
>> of phycisists in general who are not specialists. There seem to be some
>> publications around on library related issues which have Crothers as a
>> coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study with a
>> professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself. Is it
>> known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a physicist, or
>> a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then why is he
>> constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity?
>
> just enough expertise to trip up the non-expert.
Please be very careful with private founded relativity research and
experiments.
Schäfer Brinkerhoff
canabalised by the Milky Way and we were until that point floating around
space on our own??
billwh...@gmail.com
> I am lecturing a two semester course in Differential Geometry, and I
> recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity,
> whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away,
> that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection
> with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional
> mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a
> library assistant. I began to doubt the former, after reading some of
> his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it
> comes to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true
> though of phycisists in general who are not specialists. There seem to
> be some publications around on library related issues which have
> Crothers as a coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study
> with a professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself.
> Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a
> physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then
> why is he constantly refererred to as an expert on General Relativity?
carleto4...@gmail.com
Justa Fool
> I am lecturing a two semester course in Differential Geometry, and I
> recommended my students to look into the theory of General Relativity,
> whenever they have time to spare for it. I noticed by googling away,
> that the name Stephen J. Crothers comes up frequently in connection
> with GR. Sometimes he is credited for being a professional
> mathematician, sometimes a phycisist, and yet other times as a being a
> library assistant. I began to doubt the former, after reading some of
> his material. He also seems to have a definite weak point when it
> comes to interpreting Einstein's field equations, which could be true
> though of phycisists in general who are not specialists. There seem to
> be some publications around on library related issues which have
> Crothers as a coauthor and seem to approach their objects of study
> with a professional enough attitude, speaking as a non-expert myself.
> Is it known whether this person is actually a mathematician, a
> physicist, or a library assistant? And if neither of the former, then
People who attack those critical of the theories of Einstein are anti-anti-semite HATERS. Even though it's stupid to attack the messenger, these Einstein fans have no choice but to resort to ad hominem arguments because they have no answer to the rational and logical arguments of those who have figured out that Einsteins theories are fake science.
What Mr Crothers has or has not done, what qualification he has or not, has nothing to do with Einstein's work being wrong.
The Einstein saga is just a political tool used by Zionist's or whatever you want to call them.
Its got so obvious now that when I want to read up on any subject, I first check if the author has been labelled as an antisemite or a Holocaust denier. Then if he is, I'll read his material with interest, he is probably on to something interesting.
Anyone who is strongly into Einstein or the Holocaust and uses words like Antisemitism is not trustworthy and their words are full of deception.
After encountering such a person it's wise to take a cleansing shower.
Chuck Waggon
> People who attack those critical of the theories of Einstein are
> anti-anti-semite HATERS. Even though it's stupid to attack the
> messenger,
> these Einstein fans have no choice but to resort to ad hominem arguments
> because they have no answer to the rational and logical arguments of
> those who have figured out that Einsteins theories are fake science.
relativity here. Hey listen, relativity is not wrong because that. Get
yourself a proper education before commenting things like that.
David (Kronos Prime) Fuller
(2/pi)/((planck length)^2/(planck length/c)) = (13.8880509 billion light years)
(1 (m^2)) / ((1 m) / c) = 299792458 m^2 / s
((G / c) * (pi^2)) * (1 Mpc) = 67798.6421 m/s Hubble
c/(G*pi^2*(hbar/Planck Length/2pi)) = (13.8880509 billion years)