That at least was proven (again) in this comment section.

It is obvious that you have lost the overview over the implications of your statements. You are not even aware of the fact that you are contradicting Einstein / GRT all the time.

To set Telemach being correct by definition as you are doing all the time is NO disproof of the metrics. This kind of argument you are using above is dogmatism in its purest form.

So far you have not shown the flaws in the older proofs while the number of flaws in your crap becomes uncountable.

So, what was again the second foot of hawking radiation?

P:S:To mention this fraud journal is embarassing. Nothing else.

A beautiful “counterargument” that applies as well to the equivalence principle…

eq has nothing to say, as everyone was afraid of. Is there really only dogmatic weaklings left in the beautiful field founded by Einstein? You have been asked to dismantle a theorem, my friends!

It is plain that no one of you — and the planet? — has the guts to submit a response to the African Journal of Mathematics.

No, you answered in fact nothing. In fact you said “Telemach is correct by definition and therefore this other metrics must be wrong”. But that is not an argument.

It ws proven that this old metrics were solutions of the Einstein equation. So you have to show still the errors in the proofs before you can state anything about them.

So according to your own standards stated yesterday you have to deliver. Just to say they must be wrong because Telemach is correct is dogmatism and has nothing to do with serious science.

Again you are saying that general relativity is wrong?

Are you sure that you still have an overview the implications of your statements?

Again:

where is your quantum mechanical argument against HR?

Where is your disproof of the R-N metric?

Where is your disproof of the Kerr metric?

According to your own standards for counterproofs you have to deliver.

The equivalence principle of special relativity means that the laws of nature are the same in every inertial system.

In general relativty, an inertial system shrinks to a single point.

If you now have a distance in time measured by a clock in a gravitational potential, you do not have a single point in time but some interval with a length.

And then, all results of special relativity do indeed not apply any more, since they are no quantities that belong to a specific inertial system anymore.

You, otto, in your paper, do not take the the necessary care.

You argue with clocks measuring time intervals in gravitational fields, but you overlook that then, the physical quantities you obtain do not belong anymore to an innertial systen where the laws of special relativity could be applied.

And Indeed, the equivalence principle of general relativity is something entirely different from the equivalence principle of special relativity.

Or does he really uphold (quote): “Your error, otto lies in the assumption that you could have macroscopic time intervals that can be measured with clocks in gravitational potentials and still use properties of the special theory of relativity, which does not hold for such a situation” ??????????????????????????

Telemach is not a dogma but an implication of Special Relativity (with acceleration). If you deny that you deny special relativity unless you can prove that Telemach does not follow from the latter. So a very simple question lies on the table.

Hawking rests on two feet. It is the other foot that is wrong according to Telemach, not the quantum foot.

The other questions I already answered at 8:19 am above.