I am glad that Stephen’s views are getting the support they deserve. Since torsion cannot be neglected (e..g UFT137) the black hole and big bang metrics are incorrect mathematically (e.g UFT88). A very heavy object is a different thing entirely. Both UFT88 and UFT137 have been thoroughly read worldwide for several years, ad also accepted.
Hello Stephen Crothers and all interested in the concept of the Black Hole:
As I indicated to Stephen and those who are interested as I and Stephen, the idea here is:
- A Super Massive gravitational collapse of MATER (Nobody has ever seen one, much less, seen the EVENT take place)
- I believe in all intuitive measure of COMMON SENSE, and we all have that, “there is nothing sporadic about a Black Hole; …. only that sporadically MATTER falls into it. A whole lot of matter; it’s now more the 4 million times the mass of our Solar System, the Sun and all the planets. (That is evident, lots of evidence Gentlemen!). The Astronomy is FULL of it. Take a good look at the stars orbiting about Sagittarius A*, believed to be a BLACK HOLE at our Galactic Center.
- The BLACK HOLE does not come into being (exist) and then without explanation suddenly disappears, or simply vanishes (or not exist anymore.) Laws of conservation of energy and momentum is for real.
- A Singularity in Matter is just a theoretical idea. An infinite density (or namely rho = infinity) is NOT a reality. a) A Black Hole in common sense science has to have the density of Neutrons, or is a Neutron Star. b) A Neutron Star has to have a “finite” density. There can’t be a mass point that has no size or vanishes as an infinite density mass.
- Finally, the so-called “Big Bang” never happen and it never will. All such ideas that all the matter of the Universe was at the pin-head of a needle is really NOT science. It is a ridiculous idea. I believe we are all better than that Gentlemen. So, Let’s not go there. Let us do intuitive reasoning on this stuff.
I have done considerable research on the Super Massive Object located located at our galactic center known asSagittarius A*,
Take a look at my website: http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08.htm (Click here)
I will send you a Press Release on updates soon.
Edward H. Dowdye, Jr., Ph.D. Physics
Founder, Pure Classical Physics Research
Greenbelt, Maryland 20770
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Stephen Crothers <thenarmis> wrote:
Professor John Friedman,Distinguished Professor EmeritusDepartment of Physics
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
Your short email does not actually possess any scientific content. You have in fact ignored all the salient issues I raised concerning the incongruent claims made by Bland-Hawthorn et al, and proponents of the black hole and big bang generally, instead limiting yourself to revealing that the alleged supermassive black hole Sgt A* is a rotating one, “with negligible charge” (issues that make no difference to my previous email to Bland-Hawthorn et al), some uninformative comments on the singularity of the alleged rotating black hole, and some damage control on the embarrassing nonsensical statement made by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler, viz.
“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.”
[Misner C. W., Thorne K. S., Wheeler J. A.,
Gravitation, W. H. Freeman and Company, New York,
You mention only their “near infinite” density. What about their “near infinite” pressure? The assertion made by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler is patently absurd. To defend it is no less. Your attempt to twist their nonsense into “a rough way of saying the density at which classical gravity is not valid” is merely a common evasive technique; not science. Your 10^94 g/cm^2 alleged “Planck density” is no more “near infinite” or valid than 10^99999999 g/cm^3 phantasmagorical density. And while we’re at it, what about the infinite hotness of emptiness?
“At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and to have been infinitely hot.”
[Hawking, S. W., A
Brief History of Time from the Big Bang to Black Holes, Transworld
Publishers Ltd., London,
Misner, Thorne and Wheeler are not the only to propose such “near infinite” nonsense. It is quite standard fare for the proponents of black holes and big bangs.
“But is that, in fact, because of discovering that empty space has energy, it seems quite plausible that our universe may be just one universe in what could be almost an infinite number of universes and in every universe the laws of physics are different and they come into existence when the universe comes into existence.”
L., Q&A, television station ABC1, Australia,
(Monday, 18 February, 2013a) www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3687812.htm]
I ask, just how close to infinite must one get to attain “an almost infinite number”? This is little different to the “near infinite” density and pressure of Misner, Thorne and Wheeler.
Your remarks on the singularity of the alleged rotating black hole also make no difference to the fact that it is routinely stated by proponents of black holes that the singularity of the rotating black hole is an infinitely dense circumference of a circle. Resorting to ignorance is to no avail. Your “speck” is no different to the “speck” of Rees. Such ‘specks’ are in fact alleged to be points or circumferences of circles. All alleged black hole singularities have no volume, yet are alleged to be of infinite density.
“The work that Roger Penrose and I did between 1965 and 1970 showed that, according to general relativity, there must be a singularity of infinite density, within the black hole.”
[Hawking, S. W., The Theory of Everything, The Origin
and Fate of the Universe, New Millennium Press, Beverly
The matter that you say “one can observe is matter outside the event horizon” comes not from any alleged solution to Einstein’s field equations for a rotating black hole or from any other alleged black hole solution thereto. You have put it in by superposition, and you have added to your black hole, again by superposition, The Milky Way, and all the rest of the matter in the Universe, despite the fact that all alleged black hole universes contain only one mass and are not expanding by definition and cannot coexist with themselves or any big bang universe because their defining characteristics contradict one another, and the fact that the Principle of Superposition is invalid in General Relativity.
If you are truly willing to engage in a scientific discussion, then please address all the issues contained in my previous email to Bland-Hawthorn et al. They have been eerily silent.
Stephen J. Crothers
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 7:09 AM, John Friedman <friedman> wrote:
Dear Stephen Crothers,
Here’s a quick reply to a few of your questions.
> What type of black hole do you allege at Sgt A*? Is it rotating or not, is it charged or not?
Rotating and with negligible charge.
> Now I ask yougentlemen, how close to infinite must one get to be “near infinite”?
This is a rough way of saying the density at which classical gravity is not valid,
around Planck density, or over 10^94 g/cm^3. Within the classical theory, as you
note, the density becomes infinite, if a positive energy condition is satisfied.
> The singularity of the alleged rotating black hole is the circumference of a circle . . .
This singularity is present in an analytically extended solution and is not part of
the time-evolution of a collapsing star. What happens to the speck into which
the matter collapses is not known. What one can observe is matter outside
the event horizon, a surface with a circumference of several million km.
John Friedman************************************************************ John L. Friedman friedman Distinguished Professor Emeritus Phone 414 229 4476 Department of Physics FAX 414 229 5589 University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee Physics 422 PO Box 413 Milwaukee, WI 53201 ************************************************************