Bill Hobba wrote:
> "None" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:1121164075.088598.63020@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > We are going on publishing the 5th volume of works of our laboratory
> > with the paper
> >
> > " On reality of black holes "
> >
> > *Abstract*
> >
> > We will analyse the basic phenomenological and mathematical approaches
> > of Relativity when having built the General theory of relativity. In
> > particular, we will consider the ways, how Einstein derived the
> > regularity of light velocity with respect to the value of gravity
> > potential; how Schwarzschild derived the metric of stationary point
> > black hole; how Landau made his derivation for a collapsing dust
> > sphere; Oppenheimer's derivation for a collapse of dying star, as well
> > as the features and incentives, how and why had Einstein introduced his
> > lambda term.
> > On the basis of analysis of the above approaches, we will show full
> > inconsistency of the statements of problems to the corresponding
> > processes in real physical systems, artificial mathematical
> > transformations based on ignoring the logic sequence of formal
> > mathematical derivation, on unfoundedly introduced ad libitum, doubtful
> > postulates and on arbitrarily composed mathematical expressions.
> >
> > We hope much that the aspects analysed in this paper will be of help to
> > the specialists who rely in their interpretations on the models of
> > black holes to understand better the discrepancies of this theory.
> > Enjoy reading
> >
> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/v5_2/contents5_2.html#blackhole
> >
> > Best to you all,
> > Sergey B. Karavashkin
>
> Did a quick scan of the introduction.  Your opening assertions are simply
> incorrect:
>
> 'According to the practice of communication between the adherents of
> classical physics and Relativity, relativists permanently reproach those
> first that the classical methods are limited, low-quality, tendentious.
> Having come to believe in the total power of geometrical description of the
> nature with the help of tensor methods, having substituted the rigorous
> phenomenological analysis by a mere sophistry, relativists got an idea that
> namely they give a full, exhaustive and comprehensive analysis of natural
> phenomena.'
>
> First there is no current debate between classical physics and relativists -
> it is now well recognized classical physic is wrong and relegated to an
> (admittedly very important with many practical applications) domain of
> limited applicability.  Secondly GR and SR are not based on mere sophistry
> but on postulates that have been well verified experimentally

The muon lifetime might qualify if the Coulomb forces acting on it's
*external* clock were not so unlike the Coulomb forces not acting
on all the other *internal* clocks that can't possibly know what
another clock is doing but were claimed to.

> - namely the
> POR and the EEP.

Since LPI is a part of EEP, the need to make photons fall on the launch
pad instead of from space as predicted would seem to cast considerable
doubt.

The PoR is probably the least important because I really don't expect
to play with my chaged comb and pith-ball if charged spheres are
forcast to zoom through the room.

Sue...

Rather than sprout vitriol of dubious validity you would
> be well advised to get your facts straight.
>
> Bill
>
> >
> > Head Laboratory SELF
> > 187 apt., 38 bldg.
> > Prospect Gagarina
> > Kharkov 61140
> > Ukraine
> >
> > Phone: +38 (057) 73706624
> > e-mail: selftrans@yandex.ru , selflab@mail.ru
> > http://www.angelfire.com/la3/SELFlab/index.html
> >