Existence of Black Holes in Einstein's Schizophrenic World

Paul Sutter: "By all accounts, black holes should not exist, and for a long time, they were shrugged off as mere mathematical artifacts - an annoying bug in the otherwise elegant machinery of general relativity. [...] And oh boy, did the evidence start to come in. A massive dying star, orbiting an unseen companion that pulls on its atmosphere so much it emits powerful X-rays. Stars in the center of the Milky Way orbiting a massive, hidden object. Powerful radio sources emanating from active galaxies, with energies only reached through immense gravity coupled to fantastic rotation. And most recently, the subtle whisper of gravitational waves sloshing over the Earth. The inescapable conclusion: Black holes are real." https://www.space.com/38091-the-exis...ack-holes.html

The "massive, hidden objects" are actually Michell's "dark stars" - no need to stick to Einstein's confusing concoction:

"It was Michell who, in a paper for the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, read on 27 November 1783, first proposed the idea that there were such things as black holes, which he called "dark stars". Having accepted Newton's corpuscular theory of light, which posited that light consists of minuscule particles, he reasoned that such particles, when emanated by a star, would be slowed down by its gravitational pull, and thought that it might therefore be possible to determine the star's mass based on the reduction in speed. This insight led in turn to the recognition that a star's gravitational pull might be so strong that the escape velocity would exceed the speed of light. Michell calculated that this would be the case with a star more than 500 times the size of the Sun. Since light would not be able to escape such a star, it would be invisible." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Michell#Black_holes

As for the gravitational wave "evidence", let LIGO conspirators explain the noise correlation first.

Pentcho Valev

Today's Einsteinians are incredibly silly:

Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star. He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down light, and make it fall back." http://www.hawking.org.uk/does-god-play-dice.html

Long-ago Einsteinians were not so silly but a kind of natural selection (survival of the fittest) has been working, for more than a century, in the direction clever - silly - imbecile. Compare the clear thought of an Einsteinian from the past century with Stephen Hawking's gibberish above:

Banesh Hoffmann (1906 - 1986): "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." Relativity and Its Roots, p.92
https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-It.../dp/0486406768

Pentcho Valev