Huh! One line self-serving argument is pretty convincing compared with Mitra's 31 pages. If you think Mitra does not comprehend general relativity, provide a proof for it, the burden is on you.
Why is this paper accepted by Foundations of Physics then? Either the referees can't see those flaws, or the physics community is utterly confused about their valid knowledge!
You might be interested in reading the publication in the Foundations of Physics of the paper entitled "Non-occurence of Trapped Surfaces and Black Holes in Spherical Gravitational Collapse: An Abridged Version", which proves that black holes cannot be formed. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9910408
I would like to bring to your attention the publication in the Foundations of Physics of the paper entitled "Non-occurence of Trapped Surfaces and Black Holes in Spherical Gravitational
Collapse: An Abridged Version", which proves that black holes cannot be formed.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9910408
Slashdot Mirror
Huh! One line self-serving argument is pretty convincing compared with Mitra's 31 pages. If you think Mitra does not comprehend general relativity, provide a proof for it, the burden is on you.
Why is this paper accepted by Foundations of Physics then? Either the referees can't see those flaws, or the physics community is utterly confused about their valid knowledge!
You might be interested in reading the publication in the Foundations of Physics of the paper entitled "Non-occurence of Trapped Surfaces and Black Holes in Spherical Gravitational Collapse: An Abridged Version", which proves that black holes cannot be formed. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9910408
I would like to bring to your attention the publication in the Foundations of Physics of the paper entitled "Non-occurence of Trapped Surfaces and Black Holes in Spherical Gravitational Collapse: An Abridged Version", which proves that black holes cannot be formed. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9910408