Fully agreed with Stephen Crothers. In UFT120 for example all the black hole solutions of the incorrect Einstein field equation were shown to be incorrect because of neglect of torsion. UFT120 is in Google Scholar and has been read tens of thousands of times without objection from real scientists. It is clear that those who advocate black holes and big bang and so on have been rejected as dogmatists. They blast out tedious pseudoscience using a captive media. These arguments by Stephen Crothers are impeccable, and he has presented them clearly. The dogmatists have been reduced to gutter abuse. I am posting all of Stephen’s arguments on my blog, so that they reach 163 countries worldwide. A lot of Stephen Crothers’ work is on www.aias.us and has been read avidly for years without objection. People who fall into crude gutter abuse should be ignored. If they did that at a scientific meeting they would be expelled or the police called to have them expelled. After a while it becomes clear that they have been defeated by Stephen Crothers and others in debate, and the debate is recorded in the National Archives of Wales and all Britain.

Dear Ed McCullough,

I am well aware of the methods of dishonest argument you have now

mentioned, but they are not relevant to what I have been presenting. I

commit none of the mortal sins you insinuate. Contrary to your

implication, my arguments are not dishonest. They are simple and

direct so that any educated person can understand them. It is not my

fault that astrophysical scientists have committed grave errors from

which they have conjured up phantasmagorical theoretical entities that

bear no relation to reality and upon which their status and

reputations have been founded and developed. I have not introduced

diversions. Diversions have come from yourself and Brin. Your

instruction that I limit my comments to the diversions you have

introduced is unacceptable and unscientific. Neither you nor your

colleagues have addressed the facts I adduced in my very first email

to this forum.

As to your diversions on dark companions and jets, I am not obligated

to provide an alternative theory simply because I adduce proofs that

the prevailing theoretical dogma is patently false owing to major

inconsistencies and fatal mathematical errors. I venture no

hypotheses. However, I provided you with the simple facts from which

the inevitable conclusion is that these dark companions and jets you

speak of are not due to the presence of black holes. To account for

dark companions and jets you and your colleagues will have to find

some other explanation. This does not make discussion merely

‘academic’ at all, contrary to your assertion, because you and your

colleagues misinterpret observations by means of theories which are

inherently contradictory, and which violate the very physical and

mathematical foundations of the theory itself. Revealing errors is

legitimate science.

Science has actually become a dogma. That is the main problem. Let’s

return once again to the salient facts you and your colleagues now

choose to ignore (since all were ignorant of them before I adduced

them).

1) All alleged black hole solutions pertain to a universe that is

spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not

expanding, and is asymptotically flat or is asymptotically curved

(i.e. is asymptotic to some other spacetime such as anti–de Sitter

spacetime). But the alleged big bang cosmology pertains to a universe

that is spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two

different cases), is of finite age, contains radiation and many masses

including multiple black holes (some of which are primordial), is

expanding, and is not asymptotically anything. Thus the black hole and

the big bang contradict one another – they are mutually exclusive.

I have not made anything up. I have not been ‘dishonest’. These are

the claims of the astrophysical scientists. I could cite them until

the proverbial cows come home. I just make their contradictions

clearly apparent, in very simple language. Mathematics is not required

and so can’t be used anymore to obfuscate.

I therefore reiterate; upon what set of Einstein field equations and

upon what solution thereto do you and your colleagues rely for

multiple black holes in an expanding big bang universe (and which one

of the 3 options thereof do you contend?), that is of finite age, and

is not asymptotically anything?

2) Einstein’s field equations are nonlinear. Consequently the

Principle of Superposition is invalid in General Relativity. One

cannot therefore superpose any alleged black hole universe upon any

alleged big bang universe or upon any other alleged black hole

universe. Similarly one cannot superpose any alleged big bang universe

upon any alleged black hole universe or upon any other alleged big

bang universe. One cannot superpose any matter and radiation onto any

black hole universe or big bang universe in order to get stars and

galaxies and accretion discs and jets and planets and multiple black

holes, etc. To do so violates the mathematical structure of General

Relativity. However, superposition is precisely how the astrophysical

scientists have generated their big bang universe with its multiple

black holes and stars and galaxies etc. Let X be an alleged black hole

solution to Einstein’s field equations and let Y be an alleged big

bang solution to Einstein’s field equations. Then the linear

combination (i.e. superposition) X + Y is not a solution to Einstein’s

field equations, because General Relativity is nonlinear. Indeed, X

and Y relate to completely different sets of Einstein’s field

equations and so they bear no relation to one another whatsoever.

Upon what set of Einstein field equations and upon what solution

thereto do you and your colleagues rely for dark companions in binary

systems in an expanding big bang universe?

3) There are no known solutions to Einstein’s field equations for two

or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even

be asserted that his field equations contain latent solutions for two

or more masses.

Upon what set of Einstein field equations and upon what solution

thereto do you and your colleagues rely for a black hole binary system

in an expanding big bang universe?

4) General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and

momentum and is therefore in conflict with experiment on the deepest

of levels. Do you really just rely upon Einstein’s arguments for

conservation of energy and momentum in his theory?

5) According to Misner, Thorne and Wheeler (Gravitation, 1970),

“One crucial assumption underlies the standard hot big-bang model:

that the universe ‘began’ in a state of rapid expansion from a very

nearly homogeneous, isotropic condition of infinite (or near infinite)

density and pressure.”

How close to infinite must one get to be “near infinite”?

You cited and provided a copy of the book ‘Gravitohydromagnetics’ by

Punsly (2000). In this book he deals with the alleged rotating (i.e.

Kerr or Kerr-Newman) black hole. First, he has merely assumed the

existence of such an entity from the outset. Assumption does not make

it appear in the Universe. Second, he does not know that the usual

conservation of energy and momentum is invalid in General Relativity,

and that this includes the usual conservation of angular momentum.

Third, he permits the presence of multiple black holes and other

matter falling into them and the formation of material jets and

accretion discs (all consisting of matter); in violation of facts

(1), (2), (3) and (4) above.

In the Preface alone Punsly says:

“The strong large-scale magnetic field limit is essential for the

external Universe to be significantly coupled to the black hole.”

Throughout the book he talks of multiple black holes, black holes at

the centres of galaxies, black hole central engines, and multiple

black hole related radio sources.

At the start of Section 1.2 Punsly says:

“A black hole has never been seen by definition. Yet, it is commonly

accepted that astrophysical black holes exist. Black holes are ‘seen’

only indirectly through their interactions with nearby matter. Because

the gravitational field of a black hole is the most intense of any

compact object, one expects unique signatures of their effects on the

surrounding environment.”

Upon what set of Einstein field equations and upon what solution

thereto does Punsly rely for the coupling of all these black holes to

the external Universe and the surrounding environment and all the

matter in the surrounding environment allegedly interacting with all

these black holes? He has no such set of field equations let alone a

solution thereto. Nobody has such a solution or set of field

equations. All Punsly does is superpose all this matter, all these

radio sources, all these galaxies, and all these black holes, upon one

another and upon some big bang universe. The entire book is based upon

a fallacious foundation. This is how the astrophysical scientists have

manufactured their universe. They violate the physical and

mathematical principles of the very theory they use (General

Relativity) and draw false analogies with Newton’s theory (The

Principle of Superposition is valid in Newton’s theory).

Yours faithfully,

Stephen J. Crothers