Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Yes Alex why don't you explain it in your own words.
It's very easy to hide behind youtube extracts, particularly nonsense titled Einstein's idiots.
You would not even have the vaguest comprehension of Crother's ideas let alone appreciate the fact it is utter crap.
It is not surprising that Crothers was never able to complete his PhD as even a switched on maths undergraduate can see the flaws in his paper.
The utter hypocrisy is how you evoke Ad Hom attacks at the drop of a hat, yet post links for an individual who calls all and sundry idiots for disagreeiing with him.
Steven
|
We have been through this in a prior series of discussions, where we came to a head over inverse Gaussian curvature vs the radius. "the r" in the Schwartzchild solution, which you now admit is not his actual solution?
I respectfully. left that discussion still uneasy with the sharp step like event horison of a SMBH. As you continue to point out... "it's the smaller black holes you need to watch out for". If you just stand back from this, it is a bit contradictory (that is without the hilberts derivation imprint).
To me it seems, still to this day, un-intuitive for a geometric model, to have a SMBH appear less dangerous than a BH. Granted this is not the basis for Crothers proof, but you just see where my curious-laymen headspace is here.
It was after this I discovered the works of Stephen Crothers, so far i have not seen his hypothesis been refuted. Rather he was flown to the German Royal Society to present this, and continues to. You mention that "even an undergraduate can spot his errors".... well why would his PHD professor need to fly to London to consult his Nobel laureate peer? Surely consulting an undergraduate would've been easier?
Anyways it's all irrelevant, i'd be very interested in where you can show Crothers to be wrong, i'm sure he would too?