http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 19822.html

Ultraluminous X-ray bursts in two ultracompact companions to nearby elliptical galaxies

During each flare, the flux increased by a factor of 90 on a timescale of about one minute. There is no associated optical source at the position of the flares1, but if the source was at the distance of NGC 4697, then the luminosities of the flares were greater than 1039 erg per second

I received an email from Stephen Crothers about his rebuttal paper which was rejected by Nature

Dear Scientists, Mathematicians and Engineers,

Below is yet another example of how the editors of the journal Nature perpetrate scientific fraud. According to them a one page proof that the mathematical theory of black holes is false is not a “firm advance in general understanding” of the subject and therefore does not warrant publication in Nature.

Here again is the proof:

Crothers, S.J., Black hole X-ray sources, http://vixra.org/pdf/1611.0050v2.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1611.0050v1.pdf

Since the theory of black holes is a mathematical theory it must

comply with the rules of pure mathematics. That it does not do so renders it invalid.

The ramifications of this fact are significant.

Mr Crothers has given numerous talks on black holes especially on the "Electric Universe" site

but appears to more concerned about the math than the electric

I don't have the math background to follow this

but it seems like what I call "the assumptions argument"

"if these assumptions are used to create something, then,

getting rid of or violating those assumptions un-creates that something"

(which I agree with)

any thoughts?

Ultraluminous X-ray bursts in two ultracompact companions to nearby elliptical galaxies

During each flare, the flux increased by a factor of 90 on a timescale of about one minute. There is no associated optical source at the position of the flares1, but if the source was at the distance of NGC 4697, then the luminosities of the flares were greater than 1039 erg per second

I received an email from Stephen Crothers about his rebuttal paper which was rejected by Nature

Dear Scientists, Mathematicians and Engineers,

Below is yet another example of how the editors of the journal Nature perpetrate scientific fraud. According to them a one page proof that the mathematical theory of black holes is false is not a “firm advance in general understanding” of the subject and therefore does not warrant publication in Nature.

Here again is the proof:

Crothers, S.J., Black hole X-ray sources, http://vixra.org/pdf/1611.0050v2.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1611.0050v1.pdf

Since the theory of black holes is a mathematical theory it must

comply with the rules of pure mathematics. That it does not do so renders it invalid.

The ramifications of this fact are significant.

Mr Crothers has given numerous talks on black holes especially on the "Electric Universe" site

but appears to more concerned about the math than the electric

I don't have the math background to follow this

but it seems like what I call "the assumptions argument"

"if these assumptions are used to create something, then,

getting rid of or violating those assumptions un-creates that something"

(which I agree with)

any thoughts?

Statistics: Posted by duane — Sun Nov 13, 2016 9:10 am

Categories: RS Research