Ali,

>What is the reason? 

I suggest that the observed matter never entered a black hole (ie, passed the event horizon) in the first place and is simply ejected from the accretion disc found around active black holes.

The physics of jets associated with accretion discs (or, indeed, quasars, at the larger scale) are complex and still a matter of great interest from many researchers.

Ali,

>What is the reason? 

I suggest that the observed matter never entered a black hole (ie, passed the event horizon) in the first place and is simply ejected from the accretion disc found around active black holes.

The physics of jets associated with accretion discs (or, indeed, quasars, at the larger scale) are complex and still a matter of great interest from many researchers.

@Danci: Crothers "proof" is no proof. His paper simply shows that he does not understand the meaning of a local equation or the difference between a local and a global statement.

I presume the other papers are or a similar "quality".  Maybe I'll have a look at them later when I have more time and will point out their deficiencies.

Mr. Kassner,

Your earnest but empty words do not constitute a scientific argument. Here are the facts in simple terms. Any high school student can understand them.

(1) Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense, http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

(2) Crothers, S. J., A Nobel Laureate Talking Nonsense: Brian Schmidt, a Case Study, http://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0130v1.pdf

(3) Crothers, S. J., A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Mathematical Physicist is Talking Nonsense: the Black Hole - a Case Study,

http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0007v1.pdf

(4) Crothers, S. J., Black Hole Escape Velocity - a Case Study in the Decay of Physics and Astronomy, http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0066v1.pdf

(5) Crothers, S. J., To Have and Not to Have - the Paradox of Black Hole Mass, http://vixra.org/pdf/1508.0106v1.pdf

Stephen J. Crothers

@Crothers: If you want me to substantiate my analysis of your paper, well, let us make a single try. 

My claim is that you do not understand the difference between local and global descriptions and therefore, your conclusions are completely misled.  A simple way to see this is to compare Einstein's law of gravity with Newton's and to see where your argument leads in the latter case.

Newton's law, when written as a field theory is simply given by the Poisson equation:

∇2Φ = 4π  G ρ

(in words: the Laplacian of the potential is proportial to the mass density ρ with the proportionality constant containing the graviatational conatant).

Outside of a mass distribution,  ρ is zero, hence the Laplacian of the potential vanishes. Does this mean that the potential itself vanishes? No, of course not. There is more than one solution to the Laplace equation and while Φ=0 is one solution, it will not give the gravitational potential outside a mass. To get the right solution, you need not just look at the equation at one point (i.e., locally) but you have to consider boundary conditions of the region. If there are masses close by, these boundary conditions are different from those in the absence of masses. In many cases, it is easier than to produce the complicated boundary conditions for the patch of massless space, in which we seek the potential, to solve the equations globally in all of space, including the parts where ρ is not equal to zero, with simple boundary conditions at infinity. This is the global approach, giving Newton's universal law of gravitation for a point mass.

Now look at Einstein's equation

Gik = -κ Tik

The right hand-side gives the energy-momentum density, hence corresponds to ρ. The left-hand side is a somewhat more complicated differential operator than the Laplacian applied to the metric. But this operator is also second order. The solution to be sought for is the metric, not the curvature, just as it is the potential in Newton's partial differential equation and not the field. If the right-hand side is zero somewhere as is the case in a patch of spacetime not containing masses or energy, then Gik vanishes, i.e. the application of the complicated differential operator to the metric gives zero. This does not mean that the metric itself is zero (nor that the curvature vanishes). While the Minkowski metric is one solution, it is not necessarily the right one. If there is mass-energy nearby, outside of the local patch, in which Tik vanishes, then this will set boundary conditions for the metric that forbid the Minkowski solution. As in the Newtonian case, the potential (here, the 10 potentials that constitute the metric, of course) is not determined without boundary conditions. In the case of the Schwarzschild metric, the mass-energy distribution is not zero everywhere. Instead of solving the vacuum problem locally in a small patch with complicated boundary conditions resulting from the spherical mass distribution, one rather uses the spherically symmetric form of the metric to make a globally valid ansatz. Then the problem can be solved with simple boundary conditions at infinity and again, one obtains a global solution (for a point mass or outside a spherically symmetric mass distribution).

Besides, you are confusing a few things in your paper (the one cited by Danci). The Ricci tensor does not describe the curvature of spacetime (completely). For that you need the Riemann curvature tensor. The vanishing of the Ricci tensor does not tell you that spacetime is not curved. The Ricci tensor is a contraction of the Riemann tensor. Just as the vanishing of the Laplacian of the potential in Newtonian theory does not tell you that the application of a differential operator such as ∂2/∂ xi∂ xj, the contraction of which gives the Laplacian, to the potential will give zero. And it does not. The Ricci corresponds to the Laplacian of Φ, the Riemann to the second-rank tensor ∂2/∂ xi∂ xj Φ, in Newtonian theory.

Your argument, when applied to Newtonian gravity, would pretend that the gravitational potential has to be zero wherever there is no mass. This is known to be wrong. So your argument is flawed. I have pointed out above, where and why. (Essentially, you do not seem to understand what a partial differential equation means and how a global solution arises from this local description.)

It is just a matter of understanding the theory first, before trying to criticize it :-).

Mr. Kassner, Quite verbose, but all beside the point.

(1) Material sources cannot be both present and absent by means of the very same mathematical constraint in Einstein's field equations. Hence the equation Ric = 0, from which the black hole was first conjured, has no physical meaning. Consequently the black hole is a fantasy.

(2) The solution to Ric = 0 must produce an infinite equivalence class. That equivalence class does not permit Hilbert's solution, and hence does not permit a black hole. Consequently, once again, the black hole is a fantasy.

(3) The black hole equation must satisfy asymptotic flatness (except in some very esoteric types where their spacetimes are asymptotic to some non-zero curvature). Without this condition the black hole equations do not even obtain. Consequently, multiple black holes are a fantasy.

(4) The black hole has the schizophrenic property of having and not having an escape speed simultaneously at the same place (the 'event horizon'). But no physical object can possess these two properties simultaneously at the same place. So the black hole is a fantasy.

(5) It is asserted by cosmologists that the finite mass of a black hole is concentrated at its 'physical singularity', where volume is zero, density is infinite, and spacetime curvature is infinite. Gravity is not a force in General Relativity, because it is spacetime curvature. Thus according to the cosmologists, a finite mass produces infinite gravity. However, no physical body of finite mass can possess zero volume, infinite density, or produce infinite gravity anywhere. So the black hole is, once again, a fantasy.

All these these points are explained in the short and simple papers I cited, and any high school student can understand them by means of elementary logic.

(6) Big Bang cosmology relies upon the validity of Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission and the universality of Planck's equation for thermal spectra, and with that so too the black holes. However Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal emission is false and Planck's equation is not universal. Thus Big Bang cosmology and once again the black holes too, are fantasies:

Robitaille, P.-M., Crothers, S. J., “The Theory of Heat Radiation” Revisited: A Commentary on the Validity of Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission and Max Planck’s Claim of Universality, Progress in Physics, v. 11, p.120-132, (2015),

http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF

Stephen J. Crothers

Ali Övgün : the stars that are observed in your linked articles must be fast spinning stars. At very high speeds, they generate a field that imitates anisotropic gravity fields, as explained by gravitomagnetism. They don't swallow matter and don't "burp" matter. Instead, it works as follows: The matter that flows inwards at the equator level will only spiral on the spot. The matter that flows above or under the equatorial level will be strongly accelerated and deviated to the poles, due to the anisotropic gravity caused by the spinning star.

In paragraph 10 of the annexed paper about gravitomagnetism, you will see how it works.

Finally, weather the star is a black hole or not is accessory here, since it could only mean that light is curved into circles around the equator. Anyway, light will escape in all cases from the poles of the spinning star.

Research A coherent dual vector field theory for gravitation

@Crothers: As I said, I will make just a single try. There is no use continuing the discussion.

To me, it seems that there are just two possibilities.

Either you are a crank (as your inability to understand how a partial differential equation works seems to suggest), then it will be almost impossible to make you reconsider your points. I have had endless discussions with cranks in the past and in the meantime I tend to abstain. They never admit defeat nor that they fail to follow logic.

The other possibility is even more severe. You may know perfectly well that you are talking nonsense and still perpetuate it. Then it will be even more meaningless to try and point out your errors to you. Your aim then is simply obstruction and you will not be deterred by corrections, because you do not care about correctness. A psychological condition that is difficult to understand, but then I am not interested that much in psychology.

I just notice that it is sufficient to read one of your papers to assess the level of your scientific coherence. I do not need to read another one.

Very interesting post.  Sometimes back I have read one article somewhere that during the period of dissolution every thing merged into black hole and creational process start again from the black hole.  It means black hole pushes energies downwards with its own speed.  When energy goes down further it loses speed and also temperature and thus creates several types of energies and particles which together with create stars planet etcl.  The process of creation, dissolution, and re-creation goes like this. 

Mr. Kassner,

You have been verbose, and ad hominem, and all beside the point. Einstein claimed that Ric = 0 is his relativistic analogue of the Laplace equation. However, his claim is false, and so your arguments futile, as explained in my little articles. Similarly, the black hole is nonsense, also explained in my little articles. Here is a more detailed refutation of the black hole nonsense:

Crothers, S.J., The Painlevé-Gullstrand ‘Extension’ - A Black Hole Fallacy, American Journal of Modern Physic, 5, Issue 1-1 , February 2016, Pages:33-39,

http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajmp.s.2016050101.15.pdf

also here:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0089v1.pdf

This is an interesting question.

A black hole spitting out stellar remnants!

In standard GTR there is an infinite force at the event horizon and time stops.

Clearly observations do not corroborate this.

• The force of gravity does actually only increase by a factor of 6.25 at the event horizon.
• Time dilation occurs at the event horizon but only dilates by a factor of 1.5

See papers below.

P.S. I am sure some general relativists will disagree

Article The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg

Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...

Gravity waves have been found with 2 polarizations, i think we have to accept that, in so far as the  LIGO results have been published.

However, there are other theories  that suggest this result without the paradoxes of GTR, and in these cases we can see that things can readily escape a black hole.

Einstein did not predict the existence of black holes, in fact he denied their existence in a paper published in 1936, Simply because that would imply the existence of singularities, with infinite density and zero time passage at the event horizon.

The force of gravity in General relativity  (GTR) is thought to come form the curvature of space-time.

Unfortunately the maths of GTR implies infinite curvature and zero time passage at the black hole event horizon  and the black hole becomes a singularity- and yet the black hole has a radius.

The Misner Wheeler Thorne interpretation partially resolved this in  that the singularity rests inside the event horizon.

But yet another paradox arises if time stops at the event horizon (frozen star) no matter would fall in hence  black hole could not accumulate matter, and all the in-falling matter would be situated at or near the event horizon.

The solution is to alter the maths of GR.

Additionally GR falls down in a number of areas, so any new maths should also resolve these problems

Yes GR works in the weak fields of the the solar system, and Intermediate

fields of neutron stars. 

1). It produces infinite density singularities in the very strong fields

such as in black holes.

2).It does not necessarily explain dark matter in galaxy cores where we

know super-massive black holes exist and the galactic dark matter

therein,

3). It does not explain dark mater present in galactic halo's,and galactic

clusters such as the bullet cluster,

4).It does not explain the presence of cosmological dark matter as a whole.

5). It has not yet been fully corroborated by the studies of neutron stars

and in black holes.

6). It does not easily explain the presence of dark energy and cannot be

translated in quantum gravity.

7). It predicts that time stops at the event horizon

Here I enclose a number of publications which explain all of these

phenomena, whilst agreeing with the results of GR where it has been

thoroughly tested.

1).First to obviate the infinite density singularities.

1a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity?ev=prf_pub

1b)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689554_The_formulation_of_Dynamic_Newtonian_advanced_gravity_DNAg?ev=prf_pub

2).Secondly we explain the presence of dark matter at the centre of the

galaxy.

2a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228858219_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_and_Cold_Dark_Matter_Modelling._The_Gravity_of_Dark_Matter

3) Thirdly it is possible to explain the presence of dark matter in the

galactic halo.

3a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269689929_Advances_in_Black_Hole_Physics_and_Dark_Matter_Modelling_of_the_Galactic_Halo?ev=prf_pub

4). It is able to explain the presence of cosmological dark matter

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32897680_An_advanced_dynamic_adaptation_of_Newtonian_equations_of_gravity

5). It is corroborated in neutron stars (including Data from radiation

damping ) and is corroborated by black hole studies.

5a)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32888463_An_advanced_modification_of_dynamicgravitation

5b).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269667939_Corroboration_of_Dynamic_Black_Hole_Gravitational_Physics_from_Observations_of_Cygnus_X-1

6) it explains dark energy and translates into quantum gravity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/32899306_String_quintessence_and_the_formulation_of_advanced_quantum_gravity

7). It does not offer infinite time dilation at the event horizon

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287213872_Finite_Gravitational_Time_Dilation_In_Black_Holes_Using_Dynamic_Newtonian_Advanced_Gravity_DNAg

Read full-text

SourceAvailable from: Andrew Worsley

Article: An

Can the non-existence of gravitational waves refute General Relativity? - ResearchGate. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_the_non-existence_of_gravitational_waves_refute_General_Relativity2#56bf0b5e64e9b2858f8b4598 [accessed Feb 13, 2016].

Article An advanced dynamic adaptation of Newtonian equations of gravity

Article The formulation of Dynamic Newtonian advanced gravity, DNAg

Article Advances in Black Hole Gravitational Physics and Cold Dark M...

Article Advances in Black Hole Physics and Dark Matter Modelling of ...

Article An advanced modification of dynamic gravitation

Article Corroboration of Dynamic Black Hole Gravitational Physics fr...

Article String quintessence and the formulation of advanced quantum gravity

Article Finite Gravitational Time Dilation In Black Holes Using Dyna...