h.poropudas@luukku.com wrote:
> I think that Sergey possible has confused Strong Form of
> the Equivalence Principle (false) and Weak Form of the
> Equivalence Principle (true) ???
>
> I found also (with my quick look at his writings) one possible error in
>
> Sergey's book (vol. 5).
>
> He argues that there is no black hole in center of the Milky Way
> galaxy.
>
> I think that there exist black hole.
>
> In this H-M's black hole it is even so that the "neutrino crystal" in
> center of it
> (this in place of central singularity which is in our models) is now in
> process
> splitting into two nuclei ???
>
> Could this be related to "bar like" structure observed recently in
> center of
> the Milky Way galaxy ???
>

Dear Hannu, I always wondered that relativists, while omitting the
proof unconvenient for them, willingly accuse others in mistakes and
ignorance. And the main, they themselves arbitrarily change the basis
of conception which they defend. Firstly, to prove the physical
existence of black holes, you have to substantiate the conditions at
which these holes can exist at all. As we showed in our paper and in
supplement to it, such physical conditions do not exist, and
singularity at the event horizon is nothing else than a trivial
Schwarzschild's mistake in his derivation of final formula. Even a
first-year student knows that, when substituted the variables, he has
to return to the initial parameters to associate the solution with the
statement of problem. And if you believe in black holes, you have to
substantiate, how the substance, compressing to the density typical for
BHs, is able to fall to the hole centre without resistance.

Secondly, in our paper "On physical nature of postulate of existence
of stable stationary states of oscillators"

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/contents4.html#quant

to which you refer, we asked one simple question. If a BH is in the
centre of our Galaxy and we do not see it, the nearest stars in their
full orbital turn have from time to time to go behind the BH and
naturally, during those periods we will not see these stars. The
scientists have followed a full turn of few stars nearest to the centre
and saw nothing of such kind. Your premise of some "neutrino
crystal" is multiply wrong in its physics, as "neutrino crystal"
is basically impossible. Besides, in frames of phenomenology of gravity
processes you have to substantiate the conditions for so dense
compression of substance - and you will not.

Kindly listen my advice: read attentively and do not look at the
reading through the narrow limits of your fantasy. Then you will see
many of that what you wrote to be just the fantasy irrelevant to
physics. Maybe, then you will see your opponents a bit cleverer than
you are trying to think them now. ;-)

Sergey 
> Hannu