Authors: Stephen J. Crothers
A number of methods have been employed by cosmologists to effect what they call an ‘extension’ of their ‘Schwarzschild solution’, to remove the singularity at their ‘Schwarzschild radius’ rs = 2Gm/c^2; the latter they maintain is the radius of the ‘event horizon’ of a black hole. They call the singularity at the Schwarzschild radius a coordinate singularity. The method of extension most often employed by cosmologists is the Kruskal-Szekeres extension, but sometimes the Painlevé-Gullstrand extension is used. The quantity r appearing in all these metrics is invariably treated by cosmologists as the radial distance, most evident in their ‘Schwarzschild radius’. Intuitively, radial distance is ≥ 0 and so, on their false assumption that r is the radial distance in the ‘Schwarzschild solution’, the cosmologists seek to drive it down to zero where they say there is a physical singularity . Although cosmologists have devised mathematical-like methods to seemingly do this, to produce their black hole, all their methods violate the rules of pure mathematics and so they are inadmissible. Consequently, the Painlevé-Gullstrand ‘extension’ is invalid. Moreover, since material sources cannot be both present in and absent from Einstein’s field equations by the very same mathematical constraint, the whole theory of black holes is fallacious.
Comments: This paper is published: American Journal of Modern Physics, Volume 5, Issue 1-1 , February 2016, Pages:33-39,
[v1] 2015-12-03 09:52:42
Unique-IP document downloads: 760 times
Vixra.org is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. Vixra.org will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.
Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.