No, more like the anti-nova R CrB star!

You might have noticed again that he had disappeared as quickly as his outburst arrived.

So, actually, he is a Gamma Ray Burst?

Anaconda squeals out loud when he thinks he knows something, then he runs away when his obvious flaws in his argument are completely exposed. Then he'll have the audacity to pretend it all wasn't true and continue on with the diatribe and claptrap again, and again and again. So really in the end he know absolutely nothing.

You might have noticed again that he had disappeared as quickly as his outburst arrived. True to form, when the going gets tough he's out of here.

So true to form, he just again shows the exact same learnt patterns of formulated behaviour. Yet he still wants to be treated as an intellectual equal.

Evidence therefore shows that he should be totally ignored or just promptly put in his place. Why bother to engage with someone who is eager to push an unfounded agenda on some radical personal theory which has little to do with reality?

In the end, I find the continuing sick joke is no longer funny!

You are most welcome

The written objection to black holes is that the event horizon is a barrier to observation. We are not able to observe deeper than the radius r = 2GM/c^2. All we can do is observe the physical effects of the extreme gravity or tidal forces associated with a black hole. We might be capable of doing particle physics which produces quantum black holes. There particle amplitudes or channels will exhibit entanglement physics between exterior and interior states. Some data from RHIC suggests small amplitudes for black holes, called fire balls, as seen in the paper "AdS-CFT and the RHIC fireball," Horatiu Nastase,

arXiv:0805.3579v1.

So there are indirect ways in which we can detect black holes, certaintly astrophysically and some indication they may play a quantum role in particle physics.

It is like evolution in a way. We can't observe the huge evolutionary history Earth. There are no time machines, and we can only observe in our short time frames small incremental evolutionary processes. Creationsists object that scientists can't produce direct evidence, and they will persist in that. Objections to black holes have a similar quality to them.

LC

Another suggested reference for you to read which will instantly discard your notions and your somewhat inaccurate statement;

Well, since so-called 'black holes" have never been observed & measured,…

Foellmi, Cedric "What is the closest black hole to the Sun? " 16 Apr 2009

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0812.4232

This might just give you the true perspective about the troubles faced in their determinations! (Note several examples here have nothing to do with GM at all!) Doedn't sound like someone with a bias view as you claim.

So where is this wrong?? Direct us to some a alternatives that might support your accusations?

It is also interesting why the neutrino is such an important particle:
During a beta-decay a neutron changes into a proton and releases an electron. Since the energies of the particles are clear, one should expect a relatively narrow peak of the electron-energies. But physicists observed a broad continious distribution of the electron-energy. That was a clear contradiction to the law of conservation of energy.
Some physicists went so far to almost accept that the beta-decay should break this important law.
The neutrino finally "saved" the law of conservation of energy – and physics was saved, too!

So, yes, detection of particles or phenomena (like GW) can be a very tough task. And most (if not all) detectors of GW are below the threshold to detect anything at all, today. We'll be ready in some years, but I don't want to speculate how much time it will need!

Suggest you very carefully read; "Orbital Parameters for the Black Hole Binary XTE J1650-5001 "; J.A. Orosz, et.al.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0404343v2

No GR needed here, just standard eclipsing binary theory/ observations.* So where is it wrong?? Alternatives?

* Others, collaborations for methods, are; GRS 1124-683 and V616 Mon (A0620-00)

It is his own deluded mind that holds fanciful figments of imagination, NOT the science itself. Pragmatism – an approach that assesses the truth of meaning of theories or beliefs in terms of the success of their practical application – is clearly not his strong suit. Really to make such wrong and wild attention-grabbing sweeping statements against mathematics and science (minus any real proof) shows the reality of his sad diagnosable psychotic personality flaws.
In the end, this Anaconda chap is the true representative of prima donna – a very temperamental person with an inflated view of their own talent or importance. Sadly he has neither!
Such is the true nature of the jackass!

Why did I expect esactly that? I should start a career as an astrologer with my gift of foresight!

Anaconda, you have admitted that you have no grasps of mathematics and yet YOU want to judge what Einstein did and did not is correct or not? O RLY?

Ever wondered why the "Schwarzschild solution" is called a solution? Because it solves! (To say what it solves would lead to nowhere, Anaconda wouldn't know what I say – and other already said it…)

Such is the nature of a delusional mind.

Really in the end Anaconda knows absolutely nothing.

I mean, he is appallingly ignorant wrt the topic – either specific (black holes) or general (physics) – has admitted that he is, and yet continues to rant!

Is it all a part of the EU cult's propaganda campaign perhaps?

Really in the end you know absolutely nothing.

Game's up jackass!!

Upset!
About black holes!

It is clear Anaconda does not know what a pseudotensor is.

LC

One more minor nitpick: mathematics certainly cannot be used to "prove everything". If the math does not add up for a given proposed scenario, then it is impossible for that scenario to happen anywhere in reality. This is why GR has held up for so long as a valid scientific theory when alternatives have been discarded; for any other possible explanation given so far about how the large-scale Universe works, the math doesn't add up. It does for GR.

No, actually it does not. That is why Einstein never subscribed to "black holes"

The actual Schwardchid solution ruled out "black holes".

A bastardized solution that was fraudulent did solve the field equations.

But you know what?

In mathematics, you can make any solution work.

And Einstein's field equations are one big 'thought experiment' that uses make believe terms like pseudo-tensor.

It does not relate to ANY physical process, but was simply made up out of whole cloth.

Any hypothesis that relies on make believe concepts like "pseudo-tensor" that are simply fudge factors abitrarily assigned a value has no place in serious science…

…but you know what? That is exactly what Einstein did.

So-called "black holes" are nothing but a fairy tale told to keep the money coming in.

There is no money left for fairy tales.

LC

Of course, the failure to produce "black holes" in the laboratory will be hailed a great success, just like the failure to detect so-called "gravitational waves" has been called a great success.

When in reality it is just failure, plain and simple.

So-called "black holes" are fanciful figments of imagination in a "community" that has run out of ideas which correctly explain reality.