Sometimes, Steve can be pretty funny:

Early Life and Education.

Stephen Crothers left school in 1976 and began an apprenticeship as an aircraft instrument engineer. Then, he returned to high school studies in 1978. He began working as a private detective. Returned to academic studies by part-time university  distance education and part-time evening classes at technical college as a mature-age student obtaining the Advanced Certificate Computer Technology in at age 34 and the BA at age 36. Subsequently undertook a number of post-graduate qualifications in mathematics, engineering and technology, again by part-time distance education.

   Rest of his life.

After his fourteens, Crothers started teaching and tutoring for a period of approximately twelve years for a number of universities and colleges, giving instruction in mathematics, physics, electronic engineering and computing. Stephen started being an independent physics researcher at age 47.

   Academic Life.

According to him, in about March 2003, Crothers 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. Stephen was initially engaged in the development of a computer simulation program in relation to Extra-Solar Planets. A year later, Steve began working on General Relativity as a sideline. After a few months he came up with a result that claims to prove the inconsistent of black holes with General Relativity. He presented that to Professor Webb who was initially enthusiastic, and even arranged him (Crothers) to deliver a lecture to his undergraduate General Relativity class. Before Steve informed him, Webb had never heard of Schwarzschild's original solution.
Later, Webb arranged for Steve to have some contact with his colleague, Professor Paul Davies at Macquarie University in Sydney. 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. Stephen 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 majority of the relativists and the writers of textbooks). Stephen provided a demonstration that this claim was false. Evidently Szekeres either did not understand this or did not want to hear of it. He dismissed Steve's 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 Stephen confer with Professor Michael Kruchiev at UNSW. I reluctantly complied. When Crothers walked into Kruchiev's office he immediately told him that he was not interested in discussion of his work, but if he needed his help, he said, "I am all yours". He evidently thought himself a big-shot in science. There was some brief exposition by Kruchiev of the Kruskal-Szekeres extension. Stephen remarked that this gives a non-static solution to a static problem (isn't that a contradiction?). He looked at Stephen stupefied who 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 Steve or to read his papers, claiming, according to Webb, that he 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 claimed that he had just completed writing a book on General Relativity in which he derived the black hole solution following the work of Weyl. Crothers 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. Stephen referred Webb to the relevant pages in Weyl's book.
Steve had a meeting with Webb some time later, in his office, for discussion of the science. 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, Crothers changed formally my PhD thesis to theoretical research in General Relativity.
In late 2004 and early 2005 Webb was in Cambridge on Sabbatical. He told Stephen that he would discuss his work with his colleague John Barrow, and with a bloke named Joao Magueijo. Steve received nothing from Webb in relation to these two colleagues of his. In fact, Webb was silent, but eventually replied to Crothers' email, clearly indicating that he was no longer in support of Stephen's work. He even became abusive, to which Steve responded appropriately, not being one to allow anyone to intimidate him who had initially thought Webb a decent chap, but it turned out that he is in fact a rather disingenuous fellow.
I was then published in Progress in Physics, by invitation of the Editors. Webb would not recognize 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 alter 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 Gal and the School of Physics, and conveniently omits addressing most of the issues upon which I specifically called for his comment.
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 façade 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 effectively been expelled and was without any supervisor for that year. Go here for my reply. The Deputy Vice Chancellor wrote back waiving the fees, but making 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 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 with them.
During the course of these events I attempted to engage in discussion 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 kpnw how to deal with a constant of integration. 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 relativists right. Go here for this laughable document. I replied here. After MacCallum, the gloves came off.
J. Berkenstein (member of the International Committee) wrote to me but offered no science, and simply called me an "antiquarian" and generally insulted me. He then disappeared.
I had some correspondence with J. Pullin (member of the International Committee). He understood nothing and went to sleep, never to be heard of again.
I also had some correspondence with one J. Sennovilla in Spain. He was rude from the outset and did not understand my arguments.
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 containing the rigorous mathematical proofs. 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 have rigorously 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.
I have also had some correspondence with a number of other sheepish relativists of no consequence. Not a single one of them offered any science, just the authority of Hawking, Penrose, Einstein, and others. All were rude, stupid and incompetent (precisely what they accused me of being, evidently taking umbrage for my return of the epithets). Other big-shots in black holes and big bangs, such as Thorne, Misner, Israel, Rees, Penrose, Hawking, Ellis, Wald, little-shots such as J. Moffat, J. Barrow, S. Carroll, R. d'Inverno, B. Shutz, some tiny-shots not worth a mention, and a few other scribblers of textbooks and popular science, simply ignore correspondence. Evidently they think that ignoring scientific facts is scientific method. However, that is actually scientific fraud.
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 form 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. In consequence of my work, subsequent to publication thereof, I was invited to the editorial boards of Progress in Physics and Bulletin of Pure and Applied Sciences E (Mathematics). I have since been invited to present papers at conferences in Europe, the USA, and India, to contribute to a number of books, and to edit and review other books and papers."

Let's look at what is considered to be an important claim in Stephen Crothers' refutation of black hole cosmology: "Black Holes violate General Relativity".

Consider a cuboid rest-mass \(m_0\) of sides length \(x\). Let it move with constant rectilinear velocity \(v\) in the x-direction. Its mass is given by: $$m=\frac{m_0}{\sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$ and its volume is given by:  $$V=x^3 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}$$ So the density D of the moving mass is: $$D=\frac{m_0}{x^3 \sqrt{1 - \frac{v^2}{c^2}}}$$ which is infinite when \(v \to c\)  but this is forbidden by Special Relativity since no material object can travel at the speed of light in vacuo. So infinite densities are forbidden by Special Relativity. Now the so-called "point-mass" has a finite mass and a zero volume, so that it is infinitely dense, which is what the singularity of the alleged black hole is supposed to be. Thus, if General Relativity permits point-masses it does so in violation of Special Relativity. Yet General Relativity is supposed to be a generalization of Special Relativity to non-uniform motion. It cannot therefore violate Special Relativity. So if General Relativity is to be consistent with Special Relativity, it cannot permit point-masses, howsoever they are alleged to be formed, despite what Prof. Mr. Krasinski et al. might otherwise and vagariously claim. [1]

Stephen Crothers do a common error here, and it's about "relativistic mass", he doesn't even precise what he means by the term mass. Its use is quiet meaningless, i.e. the mass of a body does not increase with velocity. So the use of the relativistic mass equation when refuting infinite densities is wrong. Quoting Igor Ivanov [2]:

The mass (the true mass which physicists actually deal with when they calculate something concerning relativistic particles) does not change with velocity. The mass (the true mass!) is an intrinsic property of a body, and it does not depends on the observer's frame of reference. I strongly suggest to read this popular article by Lev Okun, where he calls the concept of relativistic mass a "pedagogical virus".

What actually changes at relativistic speeds is the dynamical law that relates momentum and energy depend with the velocity (which was already written). Let me put it this way: trying to ascribe the modification of the dynamical law to a changing mass is the same as trying to explain non-Euclidean geometry by redefining π!

So the real equation is: $$D=\frac{m_0}{x^3}$$
Where the density becomes infinite when \(x  \to 0\) , so it doesn't violate Special Relativity nor General Relativity since it doesn't imply that a material body reach the speed of light in vacuum.
That's the first point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Stephen Hawking said: "There should be an infinite dense point-mass singularity at the centre of a black hole." That means that there should be an infinitely dense point-mass (mathematical point) at the centre of a black hole. Crothers say that this implies an infinite mass. But he said once that mathematical points don't exist. Yet the infinitely dense point-mass is a mathematical point and only appears in our mathematical model, so it have no physical meaning, i.e, it doesn't exist, it just appears in the equations. Also, Crothers seems to not be aware of Quantum Mechanics and modern quantum theories such as Loop Quantum Gravity [3] or String Theory [4], who get rid out of singularities.
That's the second point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

We now proved that infinite mass doesn't violate neither Special Relativity nor General Relativity and that singularities are just mathematical points that have no basis whatsoever in reality. Thus, Stephen Crothers claim that black hole theory violates Einstein's theory is wrong.




[1] About Ric = 0 - Stephen Crothers
[2] Igor Ivanov's answer to a relativistic mass question.
[3] Loop Quantum Gravity radicates Singularities.
[4] String theory and Singularities.

In this blog, I will try to show why Stephen Crothers is wrong and have no valid claim.