@ Author

General relativity is absolute nonsense as the very theory of relativity and Space-time concept are under open challenge since 2012 and standing till date. You can see the open challenge in my profile in ResearchGate.

Yes, time and space do change within stellar black holes but not in the way as explained by general relativity. Time is simply the measure of change, and stellar black holes appear to spin very quickly based upon those that have surrounding matter that can be observed. This spin through centrifugal forces and surrounding influences, cause changes within the black hole. Is a black hole the vacuous singularity described by interpretations of general relativity? Absolutely not, instead it is the densest form of matter, denser than a neutron star. It is simply the most compact form of stellar plasma. Nearly all atomic and molecular matter is broken down within it including neutrons. It consists almost completely of electrons and proton pushed together but not adjoined. Even neutrons are broken down to protons and electrons. Neutrinos lose their separate existence, are broken down and just become slower moving parts of the background field.

Not only are light waves not emitted from the event horizon, light-wave energy cannot even propagate within the event horizon. Light waves passing within the event horizon from afar are also torn apart like matter; photons also would not exist.

What about galactic black holes? They are not singular entities as in mainstream theory. Instead they consist of thousands, or even tens of thousands of stellar black holes. These separate stellar black holes orbit their common center of gravity generally on a common doughnut-shaped plane and also spin very rapidly putting a limit to their sizes before they come apart forming separate rotating entities. Because they emit no light and just a little heat, they are the lowest pressure volumes in the background field. They are pushed together by gravity and the background zero point field which has a higher average galactic field pressure. The volume and spread of this stellar black hole conglomerate puts the event horizon of galactic black holes (their collective) at a much greater distance than would by calculated if it were a single entity. Yes, the shell theorem would seem appropriate as to what is observed.

Because very large galactic black holes have been observed in some of the most distant galaxies by the James Webb, seems to be proof that the universe is many times older than present cosmology could allow.

If speak about symmetry, it is better to start with symmetry of action or Lagrangian. There you can find all symmetris and even much more. For example a strange group of symmetry both for relativistic particle in gravity and electrodinamics ^ changing of parameter of integration. I apply my papers.

Dear Readers,

My question is very clear.That is we want to know the quantity which is invariant in general relativity only. For example the Einstin's tensor which meaningless in special relativity because it vanises in special relativity. Besides this tensor we have the curvature tensor from which the Einstein's tensor is derived. We want to know is there any other tensor in general relativity having this property.

Regards

Dear S.B.Ruster ,

Kindly see question. I want to know a quantity which is invarient in general relativity but meaningless in special relativity .

So far the metric is concerned ,I would like to draw your attention on the R-W metric which is not invariant under general transformations but it is invariant under a restricted transformation only.

Regards

This is what Inspector Clouseau would call an open and shut case. "prove conclusive" -- Minkowski's words, not mine.

Preprint On H. Minkowski's unnoticed proof we have no “Relativity of ...

Dear Readers,

In my opinion the curvature tensor and the tensores derived from the curvature tensor are meaningful in general relativity but not in special relativity. Unfortunately, insted of the curvature tensor the Einstein's tensor is equated to the energy-momentum tensor to describe the gravitational field.The energy-momentum tensor does not vanish in special relativity. Further , the vanishing of the curvature tensor implies the vanshing of the gravitational field.Terefore, to describe the gravitational field it is necessary to equate the curvature tensor with a quantity which vanishes in special relativity.

Regards

Ramesh Chandra

Dear Professor Chandra,

Is your observation related to Silberstein's objection?

Confer attached, and above.

In my opinion instead of equating the Einstein's tensor to the energy-momentum tensor ,it would be more proper to equate the curvature tensor to the tensor constructed with the energy - momentum tensor so that the vanishing of this tensor implies the vanishing of the curvature tensor wich in turn implies the vanishig of the gravitational field that is the space-time is flat.

Regards

Preprint Use of the classical speed (c - v) in the Wiki Figure purpor...

Dear Gary Stephens,

I am unable to understand any relevance of your explanation with my question.

Regards

Dear Professor Chandra,

If we have no "Relativity of Simultaneity" then we have no new time concept. (Nordenson wrote a book about this-- confer above). In this case we have no basis for Special Relativity or General Relativity. As far as I am aware, these theories are both based upon "spacetime"--- which would be negated if we have no "Relativity of Simultaneity". Regards,

Dear Gary Stephens ,

What I understand from your objection it is the problem how to justify c-v and c+v.This is well discussed in the special relativity. c-v or c+v oboth valid provided we measure c and v relative to a single inertial frame whereas if we measure the two velocities relative to a frame

Which is moving with velosity v relative to the previous frame then we have the relativistic law of the addition and substraction of velocities .

Regards

Ramesh Chandra

Dear Professor Chandra,

That is correct, we have to utilise the Einstein addition of velocities formula, for light rays, when going between frames, from one frame to the next. This formula is written above.

You will notice that the speed of light is C = c both in each separate frame, and in addition, it is C = c in going between frames too. So speeds such as c + v or c - v, in going between frames, are ruled out mathematically.

Because c + v or c - v are ruled out mathematically, by the Einstein vel. addition formula (and confirmed in the experiment of Fizeau) then this means we have no "Relativity of Simultaneity".

(In all cases, the "Relativity of Simultaneity" is based up the use of the classical addition of velocities c + v, c - v.)

Dear Readers ,

The only scaler known to me which is meaningful in general relativity is the scalar curvature.It vanishes in the special relativity.

Now my question is ;

" Is it possible to define a metric with the help of the scalar curvature?

Regards

My answer is yes provided the components of the Ricci tensor are non vanishing.