"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 - namely the
POR and the EEP.  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
>