Thank you, David.
Thank you for sharing that altogether shallow and superficial analysis of modern physics; mere smoke of opinion par excellence!
You are welcome.
And thank you for your kind words towards what I shared.
GR is over a hundred years old now. Hardly modern.
We've been out into space since then.
And seen much which shows us the theory is inadequate.
Isn't it?
However, it is not my intention to become entrenched in philosophical wrangling. My objections to Mr. Crothers’ papers and videos are strictly mathematical.
That black holes can exist in Mathematics, doesn't automatically mean that they can in physical reality.
Stephen Crothers has made countless misleading and spurious claims that he has uncovered mathematical errors among Einstein’s field equations and their associated solutions. That completely shifts the debate away from the purely philosophical, and turns it into a cut-and-dried and easily verifiable mathematical dust-up.
I think Crothers is saying the math is all well and good, but that it isn't describing physical reality correctly. It's not that the math errs, but that it has become divorced from reality.
A singularity is fine in math, but matter has volume.
And you can't just take it away because the math works.
They change the properties of matter, and they go against the fundamental laws of physics,
all because the math tells them.
Within our solar system, General Relativity yields near perfect agreement with the observed elliptical orbits of the Planets, and their anomalous precessions; the only noticeable discrepancies arise when observing galaxies millions of light years distant.
On this we seem to agree.
Within a certain scale, the math of Newton and Einsteinian GR does pretty good at predicting the observed orbits.
(Though plenty of other observations in the Solar System remain a mystery.)
But on the Galactic scale, the math ends up giving us improbable and weird answers.
Unfortunately, many are clinging to the math, saying it must be right,
even though it only tested right on a relatively small scale.
And even when they themselves say it fails at the galactic scale.
~~~~~~~~~`
Let me repeat it again, read the article and the comment section of the article:
I read it.
I think I understood what Corthers meant by, "a play on the words - 'outside a body' " first time I heard him express it.
But it appears to me, this is the error which the critics there are pointing to (and hoping to hang Crothers by).
Where is outside a body?
Or as the critic at that link says... "this coordinate is simply located at position 'r' outside some static distribution of mass in a spherically symmetric geometry.""
For this, let us suppose a Universe with a single mass body.
A single static spherical body, in an otherwise asymptotically flat Universe.
How far does one have to go away from the body to be outside of it's gravity field?
How far away before Ric=0?
How far, before the space-time curvature is perfectly flat again?
To me, this idea is even more absurd, when we take into consideration that the Universe is heavily populated with massive spherical bodies,
and much plasma in between.
In my opinion, this doesn't leave much room for any flat space-time.
Or, in my way of looking at it, there isn't a place in the Universe where no force field is active.
I will write up a summary and post it here, but until then you have follow the link and read the comment section of the article -- the majority of the comments are mine.
I plan to go through each article one at a time, identify the errors, and write a summary for each article. There are a total of 88 articles, so it's not going to happen all in one day. Show some patience.
Go hard.
I'll probably have a read.
Whether Crothers is right or wrong, he helped my understanding of GR (and the history of GR) better than anybody has been able to.
Maybe you will add to my understanding too.
Sincere best wishes
`Paul
