Let us use the checklist on this recent post:

New insights into Relativity - more nonsense
March 10 2009 at 6:33 AM

The status of special relativity, just more than a century after it was presented to the world, is suddenly a radically open and rapidly developing question. This situation has come about because physicists and philosophers have finally followed through on the loose ends of Einsteins long- neglected argument with quantum mechanicsan irony-laden further proof of Einsteins genius. The diminished guru may very well have been wrong just where we thought he was right and right just where we thought he was wrong. We may, in fact, see the universe through a glass not quite so darkly as has too long been insisted.http://abluteau.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/was-einstein-wrong-a-quantum-threat-to-special-relativity/

-Just more nonsense; they are getting more desperate now- wrong because he was right- right because he was wrong--- nonsense-- nonsense-- nonsense

Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims (6)
(x) Assertion of scientific claims that are vague rather than precise, and that lack specific measurements.
(x) Failure to make use of operational definitions.
( ) Failure to make reasonable use of the principle of parsimony.
(x) Use of obscurantist language, and misuse of apparently technical jargon in an effort to give claims the superficial trappings of science.
(xxx) Lack of boundary conditions: Most well-supported scientific theories possess well-articulated limitations under which the predicted phenomena do and do not apply.
( ) Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design.

Over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation (7)
(x) Assertions that do not allow the logical possibility that they can be shown to be false by observation or physical experiment
(x) Assertion of claims that a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict
( ) Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa
(x) Over-reliance on testimonial, anecdotal evidence or personal experience.
(xx) Pseudoscience often presents data that seems to support its claims while suppressing or refusing to consider data that conflict with its claims.
(xx) Reversed burden of proof. In science, the burden of proof rests on those making a claim, not on the critic.
(x) Appeals to holism as opposed to reductionism.

Lack of openness to testing by other experts (3)
( ) Evasion of peer review before publicizing results.
(x) Failure to provide adequate information for other researchers to reproduce the claims contributes to a lack of openness.
( ) Assertion of claims of secrecy or proprietary knowledge in response to requests for review of data or methodology.

Lack of progress (2)
(x) Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims.
(x) Lack of self correction: scientific research programmes make mistakes, but they tend to eliminate these errors over time.

Personalization of issues (3)
(x) Tight social groups and granfalloons, authoritarian personality, suppression of dissent and groupthink can enhance the adoption of beliefs that have no rational basis. In attempting to confirm their beliefs, the group tends to identify their critics as enemies.
(xxx) Assertion of claims of a conspiracy on the part of the scientific community to suppress the results.
(xxx) Attacking the motives or character of anyone who questions the claims.

Use of misleading language (2)
(x) Creating scientific-sounding terms in order to add weight to claims and persuade non-experts to believe statements that may be false or meaningless.
(x) Using established terms in idiosyncratic ways, thereby demonstrating unfamiliarity with mainstream work in the discipline.

Conclusion: very high PS score.

Cincirob: "Actually he says special relativity forbids it. But there is a clear fallacy in his statement. Neither relativity predicts the mass of a collapsing star will increase. "m" in the equation is not density, it's mass. While general relativity might predict infinite density in Crother's mind, it also predicts zero volume. Total mass would then be (Infinity))X(0). The real calculation here is probably more like this: As the density approaches infinity the volume approaches zero and the mass remains constant."





AAF: You're a real weasel, Cinci; you're a real weasel!

However, the 'well-informed' Relativists can't fool around with something as simple as the concept of density.

And so, even though the black hole is an out and out fantasy, the radius of it is proportional to its mass. And because density is inversely proportional to the cube of the radius, the density of a fictional super-massive black hole drops very quickly below that of water.

AAF: You're a real weasel, Cinci; you're a real weasel!

cinci: Well I see youhavne't risen above the level of name calling.
*************************************

AAF: However, the 'well-informed' Relativists can't fool around with something as simple as the concept of density.

And so, even though the black hole is an out and out fantasy, the radius of it is proportional to its mass. And because density is inversely proportional to the cube of the radius, the density of a fictional super-massive black hole drops very quickly below that of water.

cinci: well let's just check you arithmetic here.

Where R is the radius of the event horizon, R = 2GM/c^2.

Volume = V = 4piR^3/3

Density = D = M/V

R/4piR^3/3 = 2GM/c^2/V

M/V = D = c^2/2G(R/4piR^3/3) = 3c^2/(8GpiR^2)

So the density of a black hole assuming that the material inside it uniformly fills the event horizon is inversely proportional to the radius of the event horizon. It's an interesting number and I suppose a sufficiently large black hole would produce an event horizon where the apparent average density is that of water.....so what?.

Reducing R until it approaches zero leads to the same singularity as the black hole itself....again, so what?
*********************

Speaks for itself, cinci:

http://www.geocities.com/theometria/holes.pdf

Study this and report back with the counter argument.

I know this is directed at me.

Please tell me what my PS score is. I like these tests it reminds me Rorschach inkblot test or 'Romance' tests.

Then if you can please punch holes in my model. I doubt you can. If you could you would have already.

I can and have punched serious holes in relativity. Remember the two rods, clocks, flat universe, dimensionless mass...

a