MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2958182356 · doi:10.5539/apr.v11n4p16

Black Holes are a Mathematical Fantasy, not a Physical Reality

2019· article· en· W2958182356 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Gurcharn S. Sandhu

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Physics Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPulsars and Gravitational Waves Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhysicsBlack hole (networking)SpacetimeGravitational collapseWhite holeLIGOSchwarzschild radiusTheoretical physicsAstrophysicsGravitational waveQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With recent detection of black hole mergers by LIGO, the 'Black Holes' and 'Neutron Stars' have become common house-hold names, albeit fanciful names in public domain. However, for the scientific community black holes are the ultimate paradoxes of nature. The claimed observations of black hole mergers are in fact interpretations of certain observations under the spacetime model of Relativity. These interpretations can change significantly with the change in operating model of the phenomenon. A black hole is believed to be a ‘region of spacetime’ exhibiting such strong gravitational effects that nothing, not even light can escape from it. We demonstrate in this paper that this conviction is based on erroneous derivation for the gravitational redshift and the correct derivation shows that a photon cannot be prevented from escaping a gravitating body of any mass and size. Due to erroneous depiction of spacetime as a physical entity in GR, a mathematical singularity predicted by Schwarzschild metric solution of EFE has been projected as a physical possibility in the form of Black Holes. To strengthen the physical basis of Black Hole creation, the observations of Super Nova explosions are being interpreted under core collapse models. The core collapse models are now regarded as the physical foundation of Black Holes and Neutron stars. In this paper we have established the invalidity of current core collapse models on the grounds of treating electrons, ions and nuclei as non-interacting particles and using kinetic theory of gases for analyzing compressive stresses in solid iron core.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.170
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Physics ResearchSame topicPulsars and Gravitational Waves ResearchFrench-language works237,207