And heres where black holes can not explain the energy in galaxies http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2013/03/04/stephen-crothers-black-holes-relativity-part-one-eu-2013/
I turned it off around the 2 minute marks, after some rather stupid idiotic comparisons regarding seeing "nothing"that is a BH and then Quasars. Worth noting he was expelled from the Uni of NSW... As I have already said, If BHs don't exist, we would need some other incredible alternative/model, to explain what we see [and don't see ]
Typical close your ears and eyes and mind Such foolishness He does get into the mathematics as well , but You didn't have the patience to see the video through
I have watched some more now, and yes, he is very mathematical...which leaves me out on a limb. But again, I add if BHs don't exist, I want to hear what he/they think does produce the observed effects of matter/energy and space/time Oh, and I found this....... >>>>>>> A Paper Illustrating More of Crothers' Relativity Errors http://dealingwithcreationisminastr...9/12/paper-illustrating-more-of-crothers.html
Black holes are probably a pipe dream and general relativity is not valid anymore. I think black holes are chemical or electromagnetic in nature but I could be wrong though.
I'm no mathematician.... But as Professor Jason Sharples says in my link.... Crothers is all mathematics with no experiment. The Electric Universe is all experiment with no mathematics. How these two ended up working together is a mystery in itself! “Experiment without theory is tinkering. Theory without experiment is numerology.“ Both are needed for a successful science.
You think so?? Well for the second time, let me ask you to explain the extreme gravitational effects on mass/energy and space/time that we do observe by any other means you can come up with. Or I will also accept any reputable reference to such work. And just saying you think they may be chemical or electromagnetic is not good enough....How? why?...Any observational proof, or any experimental result supporting such claims?
Oh, it has been questioned...many times. And the mainstream model of GR BHs remains.... The basic premise of which is also supported by Newtonian mechanics and the simple applications of mass, density, volume and gravity.
Mainstream theory is based on mathematics , thats where the theory of black holes came from Crothers is critiquing the mathematics behind the black hole theory
Agreed; that's why the scientific method and science itself have been so successful. But that has nothing to do with your crackpottery.
Yet Crothers thinks and shows , mathematically , otherwise The observations can be and are interpreted differently by other theories , such as by Cosmic Plasmas
No, it remains mainstream, because nothing as yet has invalidated any part of GR including BHs, and any potential new theory, so far has not been able to "run the gauntlet " and stand up to proper scientific scrutiny. And those interpretations have been shown to be in error and have not supported all observations as does the incumbent theory of GR/BHs.
