How to Make A Black Hole Out of a Point Source

It is quite remarkable that no one has questioned the physics of Einstein's law of gravitation,

                                                       Rik=0,

where Rik is the Ricci tensor, as a condition of "emptiness". "Emptiness" is taken to mean the absence of matter and energy, but the presence of gravity which supposedly does not destroy the [sic] "emptyness", according to Dirac.

Life Inside a black hole---or how nonsense propagates itself

The indefinite metric of general relativity supposedly determines how a 'test' particle will evolve in spacetime. The Schwarzschild solution is usually employed in the discussion of the formation of black holes since it is the simplest one known: no electric charge, non-rotating, and that consists of a ststic, central, mass M. M enters through any arbitrary constant of integration, but plays a dominant role thereafter. 

On the Nonexistence of Gravitational Waves and Black Holes....according to Whittaker

The Schwarzschild solution had been around for decades before anyone ever dreamed of the idea that it could harbor a black hole and emit gravitational waves. The question is why? Surely, the mathematical prowess of the likes of Edmund Whittaker would have surely discovered these phenomenal properties of the Schwarzschild solution to the static Einstein field equations had they existed. So what is the true story of the discovery---or lack thereof---of black holes and gravitational waves?

Who's Afraid of a Free-Falling Body?

The almost universal belief, enshrined in Galileo's leaning tower of Pisa experiment and Newton's apple, that a freely falling body is unaffected by its own mass has been shattered to smithereens by Einstein's theory of relativity, known as "general" relativity (GR).

How can GR accomplish this when it cannot even solve the two-body problem? 

Why Quanta Magazine Gets It Wrong With Emergent Gravity

According to its professed mission, “Quanta Magazine is to enhance public understanding of research developments in mathematics and the physical and life sciences.” Yet, it continues to churn out the same hype found in other newspapers and magazines like the New York Times and Forbes, and does anything but to “enhance public understanding” of science.