GR violates SR and Einstein rejected black holes

On Feb 17, 7:36 am, Tom Roberts wrote:
On 2/15/11 2/15/11 - 9:49 AM, john wrote:

Matter *is* energy.

Not in any generally accepted theory of physics, assuming your "*is" means
equality (which seems to be your intent). In GR, matter contributes to energy,
but is not at all the whole story.

Someone is overly interpreting (E = m c^2). It should be clearer to
connect the dots between matter and energy if one is not under the
influence of any mind stimulating agents. shrug

It is not "circular", its just that there is more going on than you seem to
think. Collapse to a black hole does so according to the Einstein field
equation. At a sufficiently large density [#], the pressure in the collapsing
region no longer opposes the collapse and actually INCREASES the rate of
collapsing [&]. At this point there is no stopping it and complete collapse is
inevitable (according to the field equation).

For the future scholars studying these posts, by no means the
Schwarzschild metric, which manifests black holes, is the only
solution to the field equations that are static, symmetric,
asymptotically flat, and degenerative to Newtonian law of gravity. In
fact, there are infinite such solutions. That means there are an
infinite such solutions to the field equations, that are static,
symmetric, asymptotically flat, and degenerative to Newtonian law of
gravity, that do not manifest black holes. Below is such an example
as compared to the Schwarzschild metric. shrug

Schwarzschild metric (manifest black holes):

ds^2 = c^2 (1 – 2 U) dt^2 – dr^2 / (1 – 2 U) – r^2 dO^2

Another metric that does not manifest black holes:

ds^2 = c^2 dt^2 / (1 + 2 U) – (1 + 2 U) dr^2 – r^2 (1 + 2 U)^2 dO^2


Where

** U = G M / c^2 / r
** dO^2 = cos^2(Latitude) dLongitude^2 + dLatitude^2

Note also that there are many astronomical objects for which being a black hole
is the best description we have. Most astronomers and astrophysicists have
dropped conditionals when discussing them, and simply call them "black holes".

Interpreting such observations as evidence of black holes is very
suggestive and not evidential. shrug