Black holes are widely accepted after extensive study and observations. One researcher might try to become famous in opposition, but it is not a strong case. Researchers are busy with better questions and other work.

Roger Penrose got the Nobel Prize this month for proof of Black Holes in General Relativity, work he completed in 1965.

Every principle in science has a few people trying to object, but not in convincing ways. Black holes are not on the leading edge of research now,

People who want to excel should choose some neglected topic or an extension of accepted science.

I totally agree with Jerry Decker . At first, people opposed the theory that discarded the presence of ether(Aether). Galileo was tried by the inquisition for the heliocentric theory which has been proved true. Also, I want to ask Sir Stephen Crothers how does he explain the pictures of black holes and the gravitational waves LIGO has observed.

General relativity proves not only black holes but also worm holes.

Being vocal isn't either necessary or sufficient for establishing the truth of an impersonal statement.

Within general relativity, the existence of black holes was, in fact, established, once the Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's equations was found (the solution that described the collapse of electrically charged objects was found by Reissner and Nordstrom shortly thereafter; it's interesting that the solution that describes the collapse of rotating objects was found by Kerr in 1963!).

One can then ask the question, whether known stars could collapse to black holes-and that was found to be the case in the late 1930s by Oppenheimer and his students.

Then one can ask the question, whether black holes require special conditions, in order to form-and that was answered by Penrose, under certain assumptions, in 1965 and, in full generality, in the paper with Hawking in 1970. The answer is, indeed, No: no special conditions are required, gravitational collapse to a black hole is a generic phenomenon.

Finally one can ask whether it's possible to actually observe black holes-and that was addressed by the discovery of Sagittarius A.

Now the objections to the existence of black holes can make sense in two ways: Either in claiming that the mathematical description is inconsistent; or by claiming that the observation of a black hole can be described in another way, that's, in fact, inconsistent with the object being a black hole.

What Crothers has done is claim that the mathematical description is inconsistent; but he's done that in a way that amounts to claiming that general relativity, as a whole, is inconsistent and that claim is, simply, wrong.

That the Schwarzschild solution is, indeed, a solution to Einstein's equations can be checked by simple substitution. And that it does describe a part of spacetime that is causally disconnected from the rest, also.

What is unfortunate, however, is that the term ``black hole'' is used to denote both the collapsed star, in space and time and the spacetime geometry. A collapsed star is somewhere in the spacetime geometry of the Universe and its surface (which is what the Event Horizon telescope actually studies) is a place one can go to; the event horizon in spacetime, that separates causally disconnected spacetime regions, isn't a surface to go to, since it isn't a surface in space.

To All,

The important thing is the attitude of open discussion, not any authoritative statement and that's the beauty of science. By and all, Stephen is not convinced he made any mistake in his mathematical conclusion. I think his presentation needs to be taken seriously. Who is going to take his mathematical arguments step by step and take a serious challenge in open forum?

Eue Jin Jeong: Just because STEPHEN thinks he has not made any mistake does NOT mean either that he hasn't, NOR that his argument is in ANY way valid. There is a difference between open discussion of POSSIBLE things, and claims that are CLEARLY invalid, as well explained in the other answers to the question. And the only reason that no one with any sense takes him seriously is not just that they believe he is wrong, but also that they know from painful experience that there is no way to convince him of his wrong-headedness, so any effort of that sort is simply a total waste of their time. Even playing tiddly-winks would be far more useful, since it would at least be relaxing.

You don't have to study general relativity to understand that black holes are the greatest nonsense ever... even Newton "as he is" can tell you that ! But the blind are leading the blind...

Only genuine ignorants believe the fairy-tale of black holes... but the "authorities" in physics keep on teaching that nonsense... that is outrageous ! Are they dumb... or just playing dumb in order to keep funds rolling in ?

Stephen Crothers is right !!

I wish we have academic environment where open debate in physics happens daily in open public forum. I have never seen any academic career relativists who defeated Stephen Crothers mathematical arguments against the existence of Black Hole.

I don't think there is anyone who is capable of defeating Crothers' argument, because it will take only a few pages of arguments to make him silent if the argument is open to everybody to read and understand.

Now if any of the readers here is specializing general relativity specifically in the area of Black Hole, why don't you give a shot here why Stephen Crothers mathematical argument is wrong?

The biggest problem with the study of black holes is that people don’t understand Einstein’s paper on “The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity”. Scholars don’t understand the physics that underpins his work on gravity. As such the arguments for their existence or otherwise are based around mathematics.

They should be based on the physics. Black hole proponents admit there is no physics to support them. They are a mathematical prediction from solutions to Einstein’s gravitational field equations. They point out it is the most successful theory of gravity ever forwarded. So their prediction must be correct. Then there is the recent images of the Event Horizon Telescope collaboration images. They appear to have the properties attributable to a massive black hole.

Those who want to know the physics underpinning Einstein’s gravity are referred to the following video.

https://quicycle.com/video/qc0106-dr-vivian-robinson-the-physics-of-einsteins-gravity/

In it, I present the physics of Einstein’s gravity. It requires nothing more than first year university undergraduate mathematics to match some of Einstein’s calculations. It is sufficiently simple that some senior high school students would be able to calculate the precession of Mercury’s perihelion and other effects. When the physics is understood, the mathematics is simple.

It is then relatively easy to go through Einstein’s paper and see the approximations he introduced. Within those approximations, there was nothing wrong with his work. Those criticizing his paper are illustrating they don’t understand his work. His field equations and his calculations were approximations. They did not have to be any more accurate to solve the difference between his predictions and Newton’s predictions for all events within the solar system.

However that does mean that exact solutions to approximations are not exact answers. Einstein never believed in black holes. This presentation shows why he was correct. Black hole believers have made two serious mis-interpretations of Einstein’s work. Consequently their predictions have no meaning. Worse, they are demonstrating a lack of knowledge of basic physics principles.

As for the Event Horizon Telescope images, using exact mathematics derives a metric that predicts their shape. Neither the physics nor mathematics are more complex than early undergraduate university studies in those topics.

@Mr Crothers’ work has the problem that he has uses mathematics that most people don’t understand. There are many other mathematical ways of pointing out the flaws in black hole mathematics.

As for those who want to believe in black holes, slide 42 of the presentation lists a few physics issues that should be addressed before undertaking any mathematical discussion on the work presented in it.