by
Stephen J. Crothers
William D. Clinger, an Associate Professor in the Khoury College of Computer Sciences at Northeastern University in the USA, posted a webpage in which he cites himself and others as sources of mathematical refutations of my proofs that the theory of black holes is false. Mr. Clinger has however now taken down his webpage; but his ignominy and lack of ratiocination can still be sampled here. In his mysteriously vanishing webpage, of which I have a full copy, Clinger asserts that I have committed ''mathematical errors'', and provides a list of critics besides himself that he says ''Crothers has been unable to answer''. However, his charge is patently false as I had already answered three of the four critics Clinger listed. I have now answered all of them, including Clinger.
The first on Clinger's list is Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate (Physics). I had dealt with 't Hooft's 'Strange Misconceptions' here.
The second on Clinger's list is Gerhard W. Bruhn. I had dealt with Bruhn here.
Third on Clinger's list is Jason J. Sharples, an Associate Professor of applied mathematics at the University of New South Wales, Australian Defence Force Academy. Clinger cites three articles by Sharples:
(a) Coordinate Transformations and Metric Extension: a Rebuttal to the Relativistic Claims of Stephen J. Crothers
(b) On Crothers' counter-examples to the Kruskal-Szekeres extension
(c) Watching the World Cup
I had answered Sharples' first article above long ago, here. As for Sharples' other two articles, I have answered them here and here respectively. Astonishingly, Sharples cannot tell the difference between the Einstein tensor and the Einstein pseudotensor, as his ''Watching the World Cup'' attests. Sharples viciously ridicules me in his ''Watching the World cup'', oblivious to the fact that he is not even addressing the right mathematical expression. I had provided a proof that Einstein's pseudotensor is a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols because it produces, by contraction, a first-order intrinsic differential invariant: but the pure mathematicians proved in 1900 that first-order intrinsic differential invariants do not exist. This completely escaped the ken of Mr. Sharples. Mr. Clinger, and their acidic pens. It is clear that Mr. Sharples and Mr. Clinger do not even know what a first-order intrinsic differential invariant is, and, hence, why they do not exist.
The fourth critic on Clinger's list is Christian C. Corda. Clinger cited Corda with the following remarks:
''Christian Corda has published a clarification on the debate on "the original Schwarzschild solution". I cited this paper in my thread because it covers most of the same ground in much greater technical detail.''
In my two responses to Corda, here and here, I revealed that Corda's 'analysis' is nothing but a copy of the work of Karl Schwarzschild (1916). Corda reproduced Schwarzschild's derivation of the latter's solution to Einstein's field equations in the absence of matter, point by point, by merely altering Schwarzschild's mathematical notation, renumbering Schwarzschild's numbered equations, numbering Schwarzschild's un-numbered equations, and changing the order of terms in Schwarzschild's equations. Thus, Corda has added nothing new to the subject matter. Clinger failed to realise that Corda's 'analysis', ''in much greater technical detail'' is a farce, by virtue of it being nothing but a plagiarism of Schwarzschild. Schwarzschild's actual solution does not permit a black hole. One can only wonder why Corda copied Schwarzschild and offered it as his 'peer-reviewed' new and original 'analysis' that proves the mathematical theory of black holes correct. Clinger's failure to notice that Corda plagiarised Schwarzschild speaks for itself, as does the 'peer review' and publication of Corda's article by the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics. I wrote to all the editors of the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics informing them, with evidence in substantiation, that they published a plagiarism of Schwarzschild by Corda. The editors replied that they support Mr. Corda and his 'paper'. Of course they do - heaven forbid that they admit to peer-review and publication of a plagiarism, and of such magnitude. That Clinger also cites the absurd 'rationalwiki' website as a source also speaks for itself. One can but wonder as to the means by which the Faculty at Northeastern University are assessed for appointment to its school of computer sciences. The same can be said for the Faculty in applied mathematics at the University of New South Wales. Mr. Clinger's acumen for mathematics is as poor as Mr. Sharples'.
In any event, there is no escape from the fact that the mathematical theory of black holes violates the rules of pure mathematics, and is thereby certainly false, as I explained again some time ago, for instance, in my response to critics here and here. Moreover, Mr. Clinger relies upon the Painleve-Gullstrand 'extension' to justify the black hole phantasmagoria. However, the Painleve-Gullstrand method does not produce a black hole, except by means of the very same volations of the rules of pure mathematics:
My email address: sjcrothers@plasmaresources.com
Page established: 6th May 2016
Page updated: 8th June 2019