In 1916, Johannes Droste independently found an exact (vacuum) solution to the Einstein's (gravitational) field equations in empty space. Droste's solution is quasi-comparable to Schwarzschild's one . Droste published his paper entitled “The field of a single centre in Einstein's theory of gravitation, and the motion of a particle in that fieldˮ. The paper communicated (in the meeting of May 27, 1916) by Prof. H.A. Lorentz, and published in ʻProceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. 19 (1): (...) 197-215 (1917)ʼ. In the present article, the Droste's solution is scrutinized and proven to be invalid purely and simply because the procedure used by Droste is mathematically questionable since he had systematically, deliberately, and without any justification ‒removed the constant coefficient ʻ2ʼ from the differential term (v'w') in Eq.(6) and added the differential term (wv'') to the same Eq.(6) in order to obtain Eq.(7) which was and is his principal objective, that is, the desired solution. Consequently, Eqs.(6,7) had clearly been falsified. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Highlights of Past Literature Current Work Future Work.

This exploration of the global structure of spacetime within the context of general relativity examines the causal and singular structures of spacetime, revealing some of the curious possibilities that are compatible with the theory, such as `time travel' and `holes' of various types. Investigations into the epistemic and modal structures of spacetime highlight the difficulties in ruling out such possibilities, unlikely as they may seem at first. The upshot seems to be that what counts as a `physically reasonable' spacetime structure (...) in modern physics is far from clear. (shrink)

I discuss singular space-times in the context of the geometrized formulation of Newtonian gravitation. I argue first that geodesic incompleteness is a natural criterion for when a model of geometrized Newtonian gravitation is singular, and then I show that singularities in this sense arise naturally in classical physics by stating and proving a classical version of the Raychaudhuri-Komar singularity theorem.

In September 1931, a panel discussion was convened at Central Hall Westminsteron the subject of the ‘Evolution of the Universe’, at the centenary meeting of theBritish Association for the Advancement of Science. Center stage was what todo about the evolving universe being younger than the stars, evidently a paradoxin the relativistic study of the evolving universe, at the time. Here, we discusstwo diametrically opposed reactions to the paradox, which were each broadcastat the meeting by Lemaˆıtre and de Sitter, respectively. As (...) we argue, that bothcould be projected to the public as viable reflects an unsettled question at thefoundations of the then-nascent discipline: what is the role for considerationsof scale in relativistic cosmology? (shrink)

In the light of his recent (and fully deserved) Nobel Prize, this pedagogical paper draws attention to a fundamental tension that drove Penrose’s work on general relativity. His 1965 singularity theorem (for which he got the prize) does not in fact imply the existence of black holes (even if its assumptions are met). Similarly, his versatile definition of a singular space–time does not match the generally accepted definition of a black hole (derived from his concept of null infinity). To overcome (...) this, Penrose launched his cosmic censorship conjecture(s), whose evolution we discuss. In particular, we review both his own (mature) formulation and its later, inequivalent reformulation in the pde literature. As a compromise, one might say that in “generic” or “physically reasonable” space–times, weak cosmic censorship postulates the appearance and stability of event horizons, whereas strong cosmic censorship asks for the instability and ensuing disappearance of Cauchy horizons. As an encore, an “Appendix” by Erik Curiel reviews the early history of the definition of a black hole. (shrink)