Steven Crothers

Stephen Crothers, Sep. 4, 2008:
Email to: Chiara Mariotti, Albert De Roeck
I note that you have both been quoted in a recent article on the LHC:

"The nightmare scenario is no Higgs, no supersymmetry, no anything apart from known particles," says Chiara Mariotti, co-leader of the search for the Higgs on CMS. "That would mean rethinking everything from scratch." It would also turn a planned LHC upgrade in 2012 - which will allow 10 times as many collisions and enable particles with masses up to about 6 TeV to be discovered - into a desperate last bid to stop the LHC from being the last high-energy particle collider ever built. "Some theorists say this would be interesting," says De Roeck. "But it's a horror scenario for experimentalists and we'd probably never listen to theorists again."

Quite a few unscientific claims have been made by those close to the LHC. This is scandalous. The general public, at whose great expense the LHC and its predecessor have been constructed, has been misled. Concerning some aspects of the aforementioned unscientific claims I make the following remarks.

By what action can a black hole interact with "outside bodies"? First, the fundamental black hole is obtained as a solution for Ric = 0, which is a spacetime that, by definition, contains no matter! So the alleged black hole can interact with nothing because its associated spacetime is empty - it precludes the presence of any matter. So there are no "outside bodies" present, by hypothesis. Furthermore, Einstein's theory of gravitation is non-linear and so the 'Principle of Superposition' does not apply. It does apply in Newton's theory. These are fundamentally different theories, and so one cannot simply insert lumps of matter into any spacetime of Einstein by an analogy with Newton's theory. So the notion of black holes at the centres of galaxies is nonsense. This is why the alleged black hole collisions, mergers and binaries are also nonsense. Each black hole is obtained separately as a solution to Ric = 0. The one black hole cannot therefore be in the spacetime of another black hole and mutually interact in a mutual spacetime that by definition contains no matter; yet the black holers would have us all believe that claptrap. Furthermore, before one can talk of black hole interactions it must first be proved that the two-body problem is well-defined within General Relativity. This can be done in only two ways, (a) derivation of an exact solution to the field equations for two bodies, or (b) proof of an existence theorem by which it can be shown that Einstein's field equations contain latent solutions for such a configuration of matter. There are no known solutions to the field equations for the interaction of two or more bodies, so option (a) has never been fulfilled, and no existence theorem has ever been proven, so option (b) has never been fulfilled either. Moreover, General; Relativity has not been able to account for the simple experimental fact that two fixed bodies will approach one another upon release. So all talk of black holes interacting is nonsense. Clearly the introduction of mass into the so-called "Schwarzschild solution" is post hoc nonsense. Moreover, it isn't even Schwarzschild' solution. Schwarzschild's solution does not admit of the black hole phantasm. Here is Schwarzschild's original paper in evidence:

www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/schwarzschild.pdf

Stephen Crothers, Aug. 18, 2008:

To: Mr. Frederic Jueneman,
I refer to your comments concerning the book, 'The Black Hole War: My Battle with Stephen Hawking to Make the World Safe for Quantum Mechanics (Little, Brown & Co., NY, 2008)', by Professor Leonard Susskind.

The arguments adduced by Susskind in his book are by and large incorrect. Susskind propounded some of this material in a television documentary some time ago. Both Susskind and Hawking are in error, so Susskind's latest offering is not going to further the cause of science.

The fundamental physical and mathematical errors committed by the likes of Susskind et al I have amplified clearly and simply in chapter 3 of a book contributed to by a number of scientists and currently with the publisher. An advance copy of my contribution is attached. The quantitative introduction and preamble are easily understood by anyone with a high school education. The basic mathematical issues follow thereafter.

Myron Evans, Aug. 18, 2008:
Response: If you refer to www.aias.us you will find rigorous arguments to the effect that the conventional general relativity is incorrect due to neglect of torsion. A new unified field theory (ECE theory) has been generally accepted and has made the Einstein theory obsolete. I tried to communicate with Hawking - but no reply. ECE has just given a powerful and precise explanation of gravity probe B. The Kerr metric has been found by rigorous computer algebra to be geometrically incorrect due to neglect of torsion.

Stephen Crothers, Jul. 29, 2008:

Mr. Robert Naeye,
Editor S&T,
Please explain to me why my article does not meet your "editorial needs", bearing in mind that the following recent nonsense currently appears on the website of Sky & Telescope:

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/community/skyblog/newsblog/25726829.html

Am I to interpret your rejection of my article as deliberate obstruction of free and open scientific discussion? It certainly appears to be the case that Sky & Telescope is unwilling to print anything which shows that the black hole is rubbish, in view of the above article Sky & Telescope has sanctioned, thereby suppressing irrefutable evidence that everyone interested in astronomy and astrophysics should be made aware of. And surely your readers are intelligent enough to decide for themselves, given the facts. Yet you will not give them the facts, only the one-sided claptrap such as that cited above.

It is extraordinary that you reject my simple and clear article yet publish on your Journal's website an absurd article about weighing black holes with a thermometer, then claim that my article, dealing with black holes, does not meet your editorial needs. I think you are not telling the truth. I await your explanation.

Robert Naeye,Jul. 28, 2008:
Greetings Mr. Crothers,
Thank you for submitting your article on black holes to Sky & Telescope. Unfortunately, it does not meet our editorial needs, but we nevertheless appreciate your thinking of S&T, and hope you can find an alternative publisher.

Jun. 15, 2008:
Re:
Point-Mass Singularities, Energy and the Two-Body Problem in General Relativity [PDF]
Concerning Radii in Einstein's Gravitational Field [PDF]

Thank you for your advice, but your Editor has made serious mistakes. R_\mu\nu = 0 violates Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence' and so it is inadmissible – this is the crux of the matter. Thus R_\mu\nu = 0 is invalid. Your Editor has not proved that the 'Principle of Equivalence' can be maintained in the spacetime of R_\mu\nu = 0, and he cannot do that as he as admitted that R_\mu\nu = 0: he said:

"It is certainly wrong that R_\mu\nu=0 precludes any masses -- it only precludes them in the part of space-time being studied with that equation."

So the spacetime being studied by R_\mu\nu=0, since it precludes masses, violates Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence', QED. Consequently all subsequent consequences I have draw are not "insecure" but necessary. This result subverts everything claimed by the physicists for Einstein's conservation and localisation of gravitational energy. It is to be noted that the proof of the invalidity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor is irrefutable, being pure mathematics, and that invalidates everything the physicist have claimed for it and have built upon it. Your Editor MUST PROVE that the pseudo-tensor is not a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. And he MUST PROVE that R_\mu\nu=0 does not violate Einstein's 'Principle of Equivalence'. He has provided NO proofs, only UNSUBSTANTIATED assertions that have been already been proved false by my paper. He has admitted no technical errors in my paper.

The second paper does include something quiet new to the physicists, as is clearly stated in the paper. The physicists have FAILED TO UNDERSTAND that the quantity 'r' is not determined by what they all agree as to be its meaning, as your Editor claims "the fact that people use different phrases to describe `r' is of no particular import given that everyone agrees on its mathematical meaning and interpretation". The FACT is that this 'r' is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the spherically symmetric surface in the spatial section, and as such it does not directly determine any distance in the manifold, contrary to the assertions of the consensus of the physicists. This is entirely a matter of pure geometry, not the consensus of physicists, who cannot overrule pure geometry at their whim. That is the point of this paper, and I have provided the irrefutable mathematical proof of their error. This proof subverts everything they have claimed for the quantity 'r' and the "Schwarzschild" solution in particular. Your Editor's claim that in relation to 'r' "the arbitrariness of coordinate descriptions in GR generally, and in Schwarzschild in particular, is well understood in the literature" has thus been proved entirely fallacious – there is nothing arbitrary about Gaussian curvature. Your Editor must PROVE that the quantity 'r' appearing in the "Schwarzschild" solution is NOT the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature. Once again, he has provided NO proofs, only UNSUBSTANTIATED assertions that have been already been proved false by my paper. He has admitted no technical errors in my paper.

I await your Editor's proofs, without which his remarks and claims are entirely meaningless. My papers are again attached for all scientists to read.

From: Bella Nicholls Date: Fri, Jun 13, 2008 at 8:47 PM

Dear Mr Crothers,
Your papers have been sent to another MNRAS editor who has confirmed that they are not suitable for the journal;

The first paper makes a series of assertions which are by no means securely demonstrated within the paper. It is certainly wrong that R_\mu\nu=0 precludes any masses -- it only precludes them in the part of space-time being studied with that equation. All subsequent conjectures based on this assertion are therefore insecure. The second paper does not appear to contain anything new; the fact that people use different phrases to describe `r' is of no particular import given that everyone agrees on its mathematical meaning and interpretation, and the arbitrariness of coordinate descriptions in GR generally, and in Schwarzschild in particular, is well understood in the literature.

Technical correctness is only one criterion for a paper to be suitable. It must also offer significant new scientific insight, and be presented in a manner which conveys that insight to the general readership of the journal. These papers fall far short of achieving this.

Stephen Crothers
Sent: 10 June 2008 15:54
To: Bella Nicholls

Dear Madam,

Please have your "responsible member of the Editorial Board" identify any technical error in my paper and provide a proof thereof. What he has offered is just vacuous double-talk.

Bella Nicholls
Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 12:30 AM,

Dear Mr Crothers
Regarding your manuscript MN-08-0889-MJ entitled "Point-Mass Singularities, Energy and the Two-Body Problem in General Relativity" submitted to Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. The responsible member of the Editorial Board has determinined that your paper is unsuitable for publication in MNRAS (see comments below).I am sorry to disappoint you on this occasion, but we are unable to give your manuscript any further consideration.

Editor's comments:
The paper does not meet the professional standards required for publication in an international journal such as Monthly Notices. In particular, your understanding of the mathematics and physics of the General Theory of Relativity appears to fall far short of the normal professional level.