Relativity and Cosmology


On Corda's 'Clarification' of Schwarzschild's Solution

Authors: Stephen J. Crothers

A paper by C. Corda (A Clarification on the Debate on ''the Original Schwarzschild Solution'', EJTP 8, No. 25 (2011) 65-82) purports equivalence of Schwarzschild's original solution (1916) and Hilbert's subsequent solution (1917), the latter commonly but incorrectly called 'Schwarzschild's solution’. The derivation of Schwarzschild's actual solution by Corda is, in fact, a copy of Schwarzschild's original derivation with only changes in notation and equation numbering. It adds nothing new to the problem. Corda's subsequent arguments on gravitational collapse follow those advanced by Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler for Hilbert's solution, in their book 'Gravitation', and suffer thereby from the very same shortfalls. Consequently, Corda has failed to prove his alleged equivalence of the Schwarzschild and Hilbert solutions. Moreover, it is not difficult to prove that these are not equivalent. Furthermore, all methods employed to otherwise 'extend' Droste's solution into Hilbert’s solution thus producing a black hole constitute a violation of the rules of pure mathematics and are invalid.

Comments: 22 Pages. This paper was submitted to the Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics on 18 February 2016; the journal that published Corda's paper. Accepted for publication: Hadronic Journal Vol. 39, 2016.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2016-02-18 04:55:30
[v2] 2016-02-26 00:20:51
[v3] 2016-03-23 06:19:06
[v4] 2016-03-31 05:46:47

Unique-IP document downloads: 1565 times 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. 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.

comments powered by Disqus