The Stephen Crothers Song


(Comments have been disabled in all my hubs. If you wish to leave a comment, look me up on YouTube.)



Stephen Crothers

Stephen Crothers is a tireless crusader against the religion of General Relativity, specifically, against the two supernatural and irrational proposals that the common folk identify this pernicious religion with today: the Big Bang and the black hole. The song below is dedicated to him.

Stephen Crothers receiving the Nobel Prize in Relativity for his work on black holes.


The 0D singularity of Mathemagical fizzix!
The 0D singularity of Mathemagical fizzix!

The definition of the term 'black hole'

Relativists are so fond of black holes that since the mid 60s the volume of literature dedicated to analyzing these intriguing structures has overwhelmed the ability of one person to absorb it all. The Nature website easily lists over 100 papers analyzing this ‘object’ and Science lists at least as many.

Popularity, however, is not a good barometer of the correctness of a theory, so if you are really interested in getting to the bottom of it, you should begin by asking yourself whether such things as black holes even exist. And even before you can answer this question, you must know what it is that you’re looking for. What do relativists mean when they say black hole? What is all the fuss about?

As usual, the mathemagicians, so fond of dualities, have two conflicting definitions of this nebulous term. This makes for exciting circular discussions because it allows them to cover all the bases. Co-founders of black hole theory, Hawking and Penrose, define a black hole as ‘a region’ (…from which light can’t escape). This is a bit troubling because other sources define a black hole as ‘an object’ or as ‘a small celestial body.’ Indeed, Hawking and Penrose later explain in their respective books that a star collapses and becomes a physical object known as a black hole:

a star’s collapse would mean that the gravitational waves it gave off would make it ever more spherical, and by the time it had settled down to a stationary state, it would be precisely spherical. According to this view, any non-rotating star…would end up after gravitational collapse as a perfectly spherical black hole…Further calculations supported this view, and it soon came to be adopted generally.

The (3-)surface in space-time traced out, at the Schwarzschild radius, by this hovering light…is referred to as the …event horizon of the black hole.

One would think that by invoking adjectives such as ‘spherical’ and ‘3-surface’ these experts are referring to a physical object.

So where is the contradiction?

We have a contradiction in that relativists treat a black hole as an abstract region (a concept) in one dissertation and as a physical object in another.

The concept of a Black Hole is complex, and can be counter-intuitive.

[If a black hole is both an object and a concept, then yes, this is definitely quite counter-intuitive!]

Is there no difference between a region and an object? It makes you wonder whether these alleged experts have any idea of what they’re talking about.


Stephen Gawking:"The reason you can't see a bole is that it is a concept, ahyuck, ahyuck, ahyuck..."


A black hole simultaneously has and doesn't have form

So is a black hole an object or is it a region? An object is that which has shape. 'A' region is that which doesn’t. The Sahara Desert is a region. The planet where this region is located is an object. No normal human being confuses your right index finger with a region in your hand. Does a black hole have shape or not? Is a black hole like a bucket? Is it like an ice-cream cone? Does it have a surface and length, width, and height? Or is a black hole non-dimensional, like love, justice, or beauty?

These questions are relevant because, for the purposes of Science, concepts cannot be said to exist. Only objects may be said to exist. Physics is the science of existence. It is ultimately concerned only with objects that exist. If a black hole is a concept, it doesn't exist and thus does not concern Physics.

If you were to try to answer these questions objectively, judging simply by looking at the cover of the July 2002 edition of Discover Magazine, you would conclude that the proponents of black holes are referring to a physical object. The artist clearly depicts a shape that is contoured by an unspecified medium and which resembles the inside of a toilet that has just been flushed. (See comparable versions in other sources.) Indeed, the mere fact that relativists attempt to illustrate their beloved black hole indicate that they believe it to be a physical object.

Just in case, there are numerous representations and descriptions that reinforce the structural view:

A black hole is a simple object that has only a ‘center’ and a ‘surface'. ’

A black hole in general is surrounded by a spherical surface

we know that the only physically realistic object that can have that mass is a black hole

The ‘event horizon’ is a surface

This black hole would have a circumference of about 55 kilometers.

It is convenient to define the ‘black hole radius’ of an object as Rh = 2 GM/c2

And then again – as always in Mathematical Physics – you have fine print, disclaimers, and those who take exactly the opposite view and say that a black hole has neither surface nor size:

The key difference between neutron stars and black holes is the presence / absence of a solid surface... The observed differences in colour evolution can be explained by the additional emission from a boundary layer/surface in the neutron stars, while the lack of this component in the black hole systems implies the presence of an event horizon… neutron stars have a surface, while black holes don’t

There was a ‘singularity’ at the center… Surrounding that was a region… This region was isolated from the rest of the universe by a place” … “a singularity is in general a point at which a given mathematical object is not defined

The boundary of this region is a surface called the event horizon. This surface is not a physically tangible one, but merely a figurative concept of an imaginary boundary.

Black holes have no material surface

They are holes because they have no surface, only a sphere of influence

[So, Bill! Why is it that you say that relativists are a bunch of idiots?]

Of course, if a black hole can both have and not have a surface, and have and not have size, and be something as well as nothing, this makes it difficult for a rational person to challenge black hole ‘theory’.

Meanwhile, the mathemagicians ask you to set aside your common sense and intuition and trust in the authority of their equations.

Therefore, if relativists can’t tell us unambiguously what a black hole is or whether it is a physical object or an abstract concept, we have nothing more to discuss. So far, there is absolutely nothing in front of us:

[Penrose] showed that a star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface eventually shrinks to zero size. And, since the surface of the region shrinks to zero, so too must its volume. All the matter in the star will be compressed into a region of zero volume…In other words, one has a singularity contained within a region of space-time known as a black hole.

[I suppose that this statement finally debunks the notion that mass is a measure of the quantity of matter an object has. Here all the matter has vanished and what remains is pure ‘mass’ (whatever that is). We have the abstract mathematical concept mass, but no physical object.]

The attempt to pass off a non-entity for a physical object offends the sentient mind and raises suspicions.

The prosecutor is wasting the jury's time. The presentation is now over. The mathemagician has failed to make his case. The meeting is adjourned for when the relativist can get his act together.

Is a black hole an object or a concept?
Is a black hole an object or a concept?


The black hole event horizon is like heat

In my humble opinion, a good analogy for what the mathemagicians are proposing is heat. When all is said and done, relativists are more or less describing something like a campfire. The mathemagicians are saying that the campfire is two feet away from you, yet you still feel its heat. Invisible heat can burn you even though you stand at a short distance from the fire and can't see it. The black hole singularity is to fire what heat is to the event horizon. The event horizon is not a surface you can stand on, but conceptually an invisible ‘region of influence’ of a theoretical singularity located at its center.

However, the difference between the campfire and a singularity is that to keep the fire burning you need to throw in more matter. A black hole sustains itself by feeding on a concept called mass! Heat differs from the event horizon in that it consists of vibrating air molecules and is surrounded at all times by air. The event horizon is made of absolutely nothing and is surrounded by nothing. An event horizon is indistinguishable from the empty space that allegedly contours it. If ever the mathemagicians went out of their way to define and describe nothingness it was with the collective effort they spent on the infamous black hole!

The shapely singularity

If relativists have an insurmountable problem in their brains, it is in trying to understand what a dimension is. At issue is the infamous singularity which allegedly occupies the center of a black hole. The mathemagically inclined begins his presentation by telling you that a singularity is a zero-dimensional or non-dimensional point:

" a star collapsing under its own gravity is trapped in a region whose surface
eventually shrinks to zero size... In other words, one has a singularity "

" See how the bottom of the gravity well is so pointy? That point is the singularity. "

The first problem with these characterizations is that they are grossly misconceived. It shows that the proponents did not learn the basics of Physics while they warmed a seat at school.

a. In the first claim, how does a physical object lose length, width, and height?

By what process? Where did the idiots of Mathemagics ever get the idea that something can spontaneously disintegrate and convert into nothing? Certainly, not a single relativist on this planet can perform such a miracle in a controlled experiment. This stuff belongs exclusively to religion. It has nothing at all to do with Science.

Some people with weak brains answer that particle physicists routinely 'annihilate' particles in their accelerators.

Again, these gullible morons should read the fine print. Officially, annihilation is not the conversion of a particle into nothing. Annihilation is the conversion of a particle into more particles:

" the word is used to denote the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle. Since energy and momentum must be conserved, the particles are not actually made into nothing, but rather into new particles. "

The numskulls who work at Fermilab, SLAC, KEK, and CERN spend all day smashing particles to make more particles. Great! Your taxes are funding these 'research' centers!

Another version has it that the bean-brains manning the accelerators convert particles into 'energy'. Unfortunately, the unscientific word energy is an abstract concept and not a physical object. If you don't believe me, try drawing a picture of energy for me. Or maybe you can tell me what particles this 'thing' called energy is made of. Therefore, the claim made by the mathemagicians at CERN and SLAC and Cambridge that they have converted 3-D objects such as subatomic particles into dimensionless, abstract concepts is beyond suspicion. It is total lunacy!

b. The second claim, that a singularity is a zero-dimensional or non-dimensional vertex of a cone, pyramid, or gravity well shows that the birdbrains know a lot of Math and very little Phyz. Take any solid! For instance, Take a sphere, a cube, a cylinder, or a pyramid. Or take any irregular 3-D, physical object of your choice. Cut it and slice it any way you wish. You should end up with a 3-D chunk irrespective of how small it is!

Relativists confuse abstract Math with real Physics. Perhaps in the ridiculous religion known as Mathematical Physics the points are 0-D. In Physics, all dots are 3-D. No exceptions!

But assuming that a singularity is 0-D, we must use this proposal consistently. Relativists are famous for glossing over definitions or tailoring them retroactively to suit their theories. The 0-D singularity suddenly acquires dimensions out of the blue:

" Calculations using Kerr geometry describe the singularity as ring-shaped. "

Perhaps the mathematicians who came up with this nonsense reasoned that if they jiggle the non-dimensional singularity of a static black hole they would end up with a 3-D singularity in a dynamic black hole.

This is again a case of too much Math and a total disregard for the basics of Physics. In the real world, as opposed to the fantasy world of Mathemagics, you can shake your 0-D love as much as you want. You will never end up with a 3-D heart!

A mathemagician is a deranged individual who can't tell the difference between 'infinitesimal' and 0D.


Mathemagical fizzix needs a healthy dose of meritocracy

Where did the mathemagicians come up with such ridiculous nonsense? Was it something they smoked?

I say that it has more to do with the school system. The freshmen that enter monasteries like Harvard and Cambridge are privileged mommy’s boys who never had to work or produce anything useful in their worthless lives. They never had to run a production line or start at the bottom. They bring no street-smartness with them; they have no capacity to distinguish between the real world and the fantasy world in which they were raised. The blue bloods doing ‘research’ in universities around the world never had to tackle and solve a real problem. After the mathemagical fizzicist graduates, he never has to produce the goose that lays the golden eggs. He doesn’t have to report to a boss that writes a yearly review and grades him on the basis of results and merits. I can’t even imagine a government, a business, or a Mafia run by theoretical 'fizzicists'. Such a hypothetical organization would border on surrealism. The modern theoretical 'fizzicist’ is nothing like Galileo or Faraday and more like Plato and Augustine. The mathematical physicist has done a 360º turn and become the ‘Greek philosopher’ of the 21st Century, dealing exclusively with contorted semantics. He relies exclusively on thought experiments. More amusing is that all other professionals just follow his lead, presuming that the mathemagical ‘physicists’ are the crème de la crème of the intellectual world.


Unfortunately, everybody and his mother now believes in black holes. Certainly, more people believe in the black hole than in God. So what is a black hole?

A black hole is a non-entity from any perspective that you wish to analyze it. A black hole is comprised of a 0-D singularity surrounded by a 'region.' Both singularity and region are abstract concepts. You cannot draw a picture of either one. The mathemagicians claim that these abstract concepts have the ability to swallow photons, clocks, astronauts and debris from a nearby star. The gullible astronomers are busy looking for them in the night sky. That's where some of your tax dollars end up going. I believe that the astronomers who swallowed this whopping Emperor's Clothes Tale should commit harakiri. Nothing less will clean their honors for being such stupid fools!


Relativity Blues Volume I

1. At the LHC

2. 9/11 Anthem

3. The teacher said it was a fact

4. Quantum has no pull

5. The Stephen Crothers Song

6. Gluon and Quark Soup

7. The Mathemagicians



The Stephen Crothers Song
B. Gaede -- J. Carbajal

The first black hole, they found the first one
For the thousandth time

The world headlines flashed, "They Discovered the First Black Hole"
But the journal's fine print says that it's too early to tell

The politicians promise to flood with funding
The astronomers are hopeful, the science world is rocked
"All the technology that we could be enjoying
if we tamed anti-gravity and flew in flying cars

Particle physicists complain that they were upstaged
Collisions had already umasked black holes inside the quarks
"We took some pictures of curved traces of dark matter
that decayed into gluons and warped the space around"

But the journal's fine print says that the jury is still out

A group of Nobel winners claim that it's a breakthrough
They boast the findings now confirm their theories were right.
"Black holes are massive stars that lost their architecture
big balls of gas that shrunk so much they lost length, width and height."

The Cambridge scholars, their French wine bottles empty,
Are brainstorming pink theories of warped space and stretched out time
"The wormhole short cut can outrun any photon
Through a parallel universe if length contracts just right

But the journal's fine print says that more research must be done

NASA controllers their minds flirting with daydreams
Don't see the Sky Lab drifting off their screens and beyond Mars
"We'll build our light sails, ion engines and tethers
warp drive will be the vehicle that takes us to the stars."

Vatican bishops have gathered for a prayer
"If black holes are for certain eternity is at hand,
one day we'll beatify these bold investigators
who proved black holes are works of God that Man can't understand"

But the journal's fine print says further testing is required

The first black hole, they found the first one
For the aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh...

More by this Author

Click to Rate This Article