by

Stephen J. Crothers

It was been brought to my attention that a fellow named David Waite has posted a number of derisive Youbtube files wherein he vilifies me, beginning by calling me a quack.

Below is my response to Waite, which was posted to the comments section of his Youtube page, and which he quickly removed.

To the Speaker, David Waite:

Thankyou for drawing further attention to my research; but beginning your exposition by calling me a quack is not scientific by any stretch of the imagination.

(1) You say that I think frame transformations of a given metric are independent metrics.

This charge is patently false. Please provide your audience with a citation of the paper or papers, by me, with section references, in which you allege that I argue that frame transformations produce metrics that not equivalent.

The different solutions I refer to in my papers and videos are different only in appearance and I correctly go by the names of those who first adduced them, but they are all equivalent, except for Hilbert's, which isn't equivalent.

(2) You assert that I said the different solutions referred to in (1) above are corruptions of one another. You also assert that at some places I say the 'Schwarzschild coordinates' are a corruption due to Hilbert and at other places I say they are a corruption by Droste. These charges are also patently false. Please provide your audience with a citation of the paper or papers, by me, with section references, by which you allege I claim that the 'Schwarzschild coordinates' are a corruption due to Droste, and that the different solutions I refer to are corruptions of one another. I clearly stated in several of my papers that Hilbert's solution is a corruption of Droste's and of Schwarzschild's because Hilbert's solution contains 0 ≤ r, which has no equivalent in Schwarzschild's or Droste's, the latter two being equivalent. Hilbert's solution is not equivalent to Schwarzschild's, Droste's, or Brillouin's either, despite it having the same line-element as Droste.

(3) You assert that the Schwarzschild solution, although a vacuum solution, can also be the solution outside a spherically symmetric material source, and mock me for arguing that no matter can be present in a set of equations that by mathematical construction contains no terms for a material source. However, any set of equations that contains no terms for material sources by mathematical construction can't contain material sources. After all, Einstein's alleged gravitational field must have a material source, and his field equations couple his gravitational field, manifest in the curvature of his spacetime, with its material sources. The material sources of Einstein's gravitational field are described by his energy-momentum tensor for matter, T_{uv}. When this is set to zero there is no material source present to cause any gravitational field, inside or outside anything. In the case of R_{uv} = 0, the solution for which is the Schwarzschild solution, T_{uv} = 0. In the case of R_{uv} = Lg_{uv} where L is the so-called cosmological constant, the solution is de Sitter's empty universe, which is empty because it contains no material sources whatever. However, in the case of de Sitter's empty universe T_{uv} = 0 as well. Thus, according to Einstein and his followers, material sources are both present and absent by the very same mathematical constraint, T_{uv} = 0. That's impossible. R_{uv} = 0, and hence Schwarzschild's solution thereto, contains no matter whatsoever for the very same reason de Sitter's empty universe contains no matter whatsoever, namely, T_{uv} = 0.

(4) You mention Birkhoff's Theorem and mock me again, jibing I must have slept though a lesson on that, etc. and that I don't understand that according to this Theorem the solution is just the Schwarzschild solution. This false charge is a corollary to your false charge (1) above, so this charge too is patently false. Please cite for your audience the paper or papers, by me, with section references, by which you claim that I don't understand 'Birkhoff's Theorem'.

More For The General Audience:

I remark for the general audience that it is not necessary to consider Schwarzschild's solution or Hilbert's corruption thereof, or any expression for the solution to R_{uv} = 0, or indeed any mathematical expressions whatever, to prove that the black hole and the big bang are fallacious. Here is a short and simple non-mathematical overview to this effect:

THE RISE AND FALL OF BLACK HOLES AND BIG BANGS

http://www.principia-scientific.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-black-holes-and-big-bangs.html

Here is a more detailed non-mathematical exposition:

Black Hole and Big Bang: A Simplified Refutation,

http://viXra.org/abs/1306.0024

Here is a reasonably short mathematical exposition:

On the alleged 'Incompleteness' of General Relativity,

http://viXra.org/abs/1406.0038?

Stephen J. Crothers

Page established: 29^{th} December 2014

Latest update: 29^{th} December 2014