In about March 2003 I formally commenced part-time candidature for the PhD in the School of Physics at the University of
New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, Australia, under the supervision of Professor John K. Webb. The support supervisor was
Professor Michael Ashley. I was initially engaged in the development of a computer simulation program in relation to
About a year later I began work on General Relativity as a sideline. After a few months I came up with a result that proved
black holes inconsistent with General Relativity. I presented this to Professor Webb. He was initially enthusiastic, and
even arranged for me to deliver a lecture to his undergraduate General Relativity class. Before my informing him, Webb had
never heard of Schwarzschild's original solution.
Later Webb arranged for me to have some contact with his colleague, Professor Paul Davies at Macquarie University in Sydney.
He and Davies, both being British, knew each other from their Cambridge days. Davies initially replied in a derogatory tone,
claiming that Schwarzschild's original metric, which he had never before seen, was not Ricci flat, and did not satisfy
Einstein's field equations. I proved these claims false, at the request of Webb. That drew more attention from Davies.
Unfortunately, Davies turned out to be rather inept (see some of his correspondence
here), so he
sent my analysis to Professor Peter Szekeres of the University of Adelaide, son of George Szekeres of the Kruskal-Szekeres
extension. He proved just as inept. He too had never before
heard of Schwarzschild's original solution, and claimed that it was equivalent to Hilbert's metric (the one always and
erroneously called "Schwarzschild's" solution by the writers of textbooks and papers). I provided
a demonstration that this claim is false. Evidently Szekeres either did not understand this or did not want to hear of it.
He dismissed my analysis unscientifically. Davies, in subservience to Szekeres, then failed to respond any further. Webb
began to falter on the strength of the incompetent advice.
Webb also insisted that I confer with Professor Michael Kruchiev at
UNSW. I reluctantly complied. When I walked into Kruchiev's office he
immediately told me that he was not interested in discussion of my
work, but if I needed his help, he said, "I'm all yours". He evidently
thought himself a big-shot in science. There was some brief exposition
by Kruchiev of the Kruskal-Szekeres extension. I remarked that this
gives a non-static solution to a static problem (isn't that a
contradiction?). He looked at me stupefied. I terminated the meeting
after about 10 minutes, as it was obviously pointless.
Webb then attempted to engage Professor Victor Flambaum at UNSW. Flambaum refused to meet with me or to read my papers,
claiming, according to Webb, that I had no chance of being right. At that time there was a Russian visitor at UNSW
(Flambaum and Kruchiev are also Russians). Webb discussed the matter with the visitor. The visitor claimed that
Schwarzschild's original solution was wrong. He also told Webb that he had just completed writing a book on General
Relativity in which he derived the black hole solution following the work of Weyl. I pointed out to Webb that this claim
was nonsense as it is clearly argued by Weyl in his book, 'Space, Time, Matter' that there is no 'interior' solution as claimed
by the proponents of the black hole. I referred Webb to the relevant pages in Weyl's book.
I had a meeting with Webb some time later, in his office, for discussion of the theory. He understood nothing, and told me
so; but he lent his support to my continued research.
In mid to late 2004, with the support of Webb, I formally changed my PhD thesis to theoretical research in General Relativity.
In late 2004 and early 2005 Webb was in Cambridge on Sabbatical. He told me that he would discuss my work with his colleague
John Barrow, and with a bloke named Joao Magueijo. I received nothing from Webb
in relation to these two colleagues of his. In fact, Webb was silent, but eventually replied to my email, clearly indicating
that he was no longer in support of my work. He even became abusive, to which I responded appropriately, not being one to
allow anyone to intimidate me. I had initially thought Webb a decent chap, but it turned out that he is in fact a rather
I was then published in the journal Progress in Physics, by invitation of the Editors. Webb would not recognise the publications
claiming in so many words that Progress in Physics was not to be taken seriously.
I wrote up my thesis and made representation to Professor Mike Gal for early submission. Webb informed me that he was not
prepared to "sign off" on my thesis and that I must change my thesis topic if he was to continue as my supervisor. I
rejected his ultimatum, and informed Gal. Gal told me that I did not need Webb's consent to submit, but since my submission
was early, I would have to go through a bureaucratic process to get my thesis submitted, and that the School of Physics
would support my submission. Gal informed the Head of School, Professor Warwick Couch, of the situation and arranged a
meeting in Couch's office. I was to meet Couch in the company of Gal. Later Gal claimed that he was mistaken in his advice
on how early submission was to be effected.
The meeting took place. Gal and Couch insisted that I send a
paper to a journal of their choosing, namely, Physical Review, and paid no regard to my publications in
Progress in Physics. I objected on the grounds that it is inappropriate to publish the same paper in another journal.
They also insisted that I allow Professor Chris
Hamer of UNSW to read my papers so that Hamer could send them a report
and his recommendations. I met with Hamer a couple of days later and
gave him several of my published papers. During our meeting I asked Hamer to identify the quantity r in Hilbert's metric. He told me
that it's "the radius." He is incorrect.
About a week or so later I received an email from Hamer, along with a copy of his report and recommendation, which he had
sent to Couch and Gal. He claimed that I was but an "apprentice" in these matters. He had evidently read only one of my papers and did
not understand anything. His report contained a gross misrepresentation of my work. He had actually altered my work and thereby
claimed that I was in error and that I should not be permitted to submit and that if I wanted a PhD from UNSW I must change
my topic as Webb had dictated. Go here for Hamer's covering letter, and go
here for Hamer's incompetent report.
I wrote in protest to Gal and Couch of Hamer's misrepresentation and incompetence. Couch replied that I was rude in my
remarks about Professor Hamer, and totally disregarded Hamer's alteration of my work and misrepresentation
thereof. My reply to Hamer is here. Couch and Gal would not
support my PhD submission, contrary to Gal's previous advice.
I wrote to the University Academic Committee in protest. Go here for my
letter. The Academic
Committee replied in full support of its professors in the School of Physics, and completely ignored Hamer's alteration of my work and his
misrepresentation of my work. Go here for the Committee's letter in reply.
My next letter to the Academic Committee is here. The whitewash reply is
here, wherein the Presiding Member Faculty of Science, Dr. David Cohen,
defends the misconduct of Gal and the other relevant professors in the School
of Physics, and conveniently omits addressing most of the issues upon which I specifically called for his comment. I was not invited to meet with
the Academic Committe, but Gal conferred with them.
I was then formally without a supervisor (although actually without a supervisor since early 2005 when Webb withdrew his
support), and therefore effectively expelled de facto from PhD candidature since the University rules do not allow
candidature without a supervisor, as the Academic Committee and the professors well knew. No one in the School of Physics
would replace Webb as supervisor, and the University officials all knew this. By this tactic the University eliminated me
from the PhD programme, whilst maintaining a fašade of integrity and due process, despite the fact I was not invited to the
meeting of the Academic Committee.
I received a letter dated 16 December 2005 from UNSW threatening me with legal action if I did not pay fees for 2005. Go
here for the letter. I wrote back denying liability for the fees, since I had
expelled and was without any supervisor for that year. Go here for my reply.
The Deputy Vice Chancellor wrote back waiving the fees, but made no comment as to the misconduct of Hamer and the other professors. Go
here for his letter.
It was brought to my attention by the folks at ArchiveFreedom
that they received a letter of disapproval of the report herein (to
which their website contains a link) on the dishonourable acts and
omissions perpetrated by the physics professors and Academic Committee
of the University of New South Wales, from the founder of its School of
Theoretical Physics, Emeritus Professor Heinrich Hora. The letter was forwarded to
me for response. Mr. Hora claims that his University and his professors
did no wrong, and told me that my report is insulting to UNSW, its
professors, and himself. He does not disapprove of the serious
misconduct of his professors one bit. You can read his arrant nonsense
here. Professors at UNSW seem to think that they can commit fraud with impunity. I doubt that the courts would agree
During the course of these events I attempted to engage in discussion some so-called 'experts' in General relativity. Amongst
them were included all the members of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation. Of the latter I
managed to engage M.H.A. MacCallum in some discussion. MacCallum was from the outset rude and condescending, and quite inept. He did not even
know how to deal with a constant of integration, as his correspondence with me attests. Go
here for his first letter (with some later ones appended). I replied
here. He next provided some incorrect argument as to why I was wrong and the
usual suspects right. Go
here for this laughable document. I replied
With MacCallum, the gloves came off.
J. Berkenstein (member of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation) wrote to me but offered no science, and simply
called me an "antiquarian" and generally insulted me. He then disappeared.
I had some very brief correspondence with J. Pullin (member of the International Committee for General Relativity and Gravitation) one J.
Sennovilla in Spain. Neither provided any scientific discourse.
I also wrote to the famous Mr. Roy Kerr, of the Kerr solution, and pointed out errors in the standard interpretation of
his metric, and provided him with copies of my relevant papers. As I did not
hear from him I sent a second email complaining to him that it was discourteous of him not to reply. He finally replied on
the 2nd March 2006, and it was pathetic. First, he told me that my complaint of his discourtesy was "insulting crap".
Then he told me that my work was "rubbish" and referred me to the usual change of co-ordinates (e.g. Kruskal-Szekeres). He
offered no mathematical refutation or sound scientific arguments, although I requested him to provide this. I pointed out
that he was circular in trying to refute me by referring me to the Kruskal-Szekeres type co-ordinates since I had
proved the Kruskal-Szekeres co-ordinates invalid. Evidently that was too sophisticated for his poor brain. Kerr simply
took his bat and ball home when it become apparent to him that he couldn't win with mindless doubletalk,
evidently being of the view that facts which upset his applecart can be disposed of by ignoring them. Very convenient I'm
sure, but certainly not science. You can read the Kerr correspondence here.
My papers were posted to the electronic archive of the Abdus Salam
International Centre for Theoretical Physics,
Trieste, Italy, but members of the International Committee for General
Relativity and Gravitational and/or their associates, servants or
agents, arranged for all my papers to be removed from the ICTP, without my knowledge. I was subsequently barred from posting papers to
the ICTP website. It became clear that the ICTP is also actively engaged in the suppression and
falsification of science. You can read about that here. My papers are
cited on the website of the American Mathematical Society.
A Simple Non-Mathematical Proof
It is very easily proven that the black hole and the big bang contradict one another and so they are mutually exclusive.
All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein's field equations pertain to universes that are spatially infinite, are eternal, contain only one
mass, are not expanding, and are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. But the alleged big bang universes are
spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), are of finite age, contain radiation and many masses (including multiple
black holes, some of which are primordial), are expanding, and are not asymptotically anything
(Crothers 2013). Thus black hole universes and big
bang universes contradict one another. They are mutually exclusive and so they cannot co-exist. It is therefore not possible for a black hole to
be present in a big bang universe or even in another black hole universe, and likewise it is not possible for a big bang universe to be present
in a black hole universe or in another big bang universe. Nonetheless the astrophysical magicians superpose black hole and big bang universes
notwithstanding that they are incompatible by their very definitions, and that the Principle of Superposition does not hold in General Relativity.
Much of modern physics is simply manufactured in this way and so it bears no relation to the actual Universe.