Black holes do not exist

2026-06-18, by

Adam has a PhD in Economics, is responsible for writing technical articles and oversees development of online applications. You can find him at:
https://narkiewicz.info/
https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamnarkiewicz/
https://x.com/adamnar

According to the scientific consensus, compact objects more massive than neutron stars contain black holes. However, the theory of black holes introduces numerous problems and paradoxes. To alleviate them, I propose modeling massive compact objects as bodies in asymptotic collapse, using the non-stationary framework of Oppenheimer and Snyder. Contrary to common practice, I assume that the spacetime manifold in question, although extendible mathematically, is not extendible physically. With this framework, I examine the nature of Sagittarius A* and conclude that there is no singularity at its center and no event horizon at its boundary.

Introduction

A typically given definition uses phrases like “a region of space with gravity so strong that not even light can escape.” However, there are certain additional features that virtually no model of a black hole can do without. These features are ingrained in popular understanding of black holes and include (see, for example, Chruściel, 2020; Guidry, 2019; Hawking, 2016; Misner, Thorne, and Wheeler, 2017; Penrose, 2007; Susskind & Cabannes, 2023):

A black hole emerges when a star collapses below its Schwarzschild radius.
There exists an event horizon which can be crossed by matter and light in one direction only.
The singularity or a yet-unknown state of matter can be found at the center of a black hole. This is where all of the infalling matter ends up.

In what follows, I argue that the objects we observe lack properties (1)–(3) and that the concept of a black hole should be abandoned.

This analysis rests on the assumption that the spacetime manifold is fixed. Field equations can only affect the metric, which is just a tensor field on the manifold, while the manifold itself remains unchanged. By contrast, the hitherto popular and often unspoken assumption is that if field equations and the metric can be extrapolated beyond the manifold, and if such an extrapolation seems “reasonable” for other reasons, then extending the manifold is not only possible but also mandatory.

Consider a flat, fully extended empty spacetime manifold. Adding matter and letting it evolve according to the laws of physics changes the metric tensor on this manifold. Occasionally, matter may coalesce to such a degree that nothing can prevent its continued collapse. A simple model illustrating this scenario was developed by Oppenheimer and Snyder in 1939 (the OS model henceforth). Although the results contained in their paper are perfectly valid in this context, the typical modern interpretation of these results is not. This is because having a fixed manifold prevents extending it to the regions where the event horizon and the singularity are in modern black-hole models.

Should extensions of the spacetime manifold due to a particular configuration of matter be allowed? In other words, (1) can certain configurations of matter dynamically “create” new regions of the spacetime manifold, or (2) is the manifold fixed, with matter affecting only the associated tensor field? There is no clear-cut rule saying which extensions are allowed and which are not, and proposition (1) has been historically applied in a somewhat ad hoc fashion. Meanwhile, Occam’s razor favors proposition (2). But more importantly, these propositions should be judged by the problems and inconsistencies caused by the models they support. In section “Which model is better?” I present such arguments in favor of proposition (2).

However, the article starts chronologically earlier. Assuming the claims contained herein are correct, section “What mistakes have been made?” begins by exploring the errors that led scientists to the notion of black holes. I then give an intuitive description of what should be the replacement in section “What exists instead.” Section “Which model is better?” contains my actual arguments. A sample application of this new theory is presented in section “What is Sagittarius A*.” In section “A note on coordinate transformations,” I address a common criticism: that I misinterpret the OS model.

What mistakes have been made?

The Schwarzschild metric is the flagship model of a black hole (Chruściel, 2020). It describes a non-rotating, non-accreting black hole. A more advanced model is the Kerr metric, which describes a rotating black hole. These two metrics are stationary solutions to Einstein’s equations in a vacuum. They are stationary, that is, they are based on the assumption that the metric and the distribution of matter are constant over time. This assumption is incorrect.

Similar mistakes have already been made. For example, consider the Friedmann equations. These equations are dynamical, and assuming that the solution must be stationary famously led to unphysical results and wrong conclusions about the nature of the Universe. Currently, only non-stationary solutions to the Friedmann equations are thought to correspond to physical reality (Guidry, 2019).

Einstein’s equations are dynamical, so can solving them while assuming stationarity lead to unphysical solutions, like in the case of a static universe? Not in general. However, numerous problems and paradoxes suggest that black holes, in particular, are suspect, and that the Schwarzschild and Kerr metrics, although mathematically correct, may not describe the physical reality of the massive compact objects we observe (MCOs thereafter).

Physicists had known non-stationary solutions describing MCOs long before the term “black hole” was coined in 1967. The first such model was proposed by Oppenheimer and Snyder in 1939 and describes a body in a state of asymptotic collapse. Nevertheless, physicists did not take the OS model at face value. Instead of treating it as the final destination, they reinterpreted it as a step towards a stationary solution. This was a mistake.

Another incorrect assumption is that absent any dramatic catastrophe, the flow of time must continue. In the OS model, the proper time $τ_{0}$ of a comoving observer is finite. However, if the flow of time must continue, such a model cannot show the whole picture: something must happen after the calculated proper time runs out! But this is yet another mistake. The OS model does show the whole picture. The assumption that the flow of time must continue is not based on any physical principle. Eliminating it yields a clearer, more coherent picture of the true nature of MCOs.

There were probably many more mistakes, and the question of why the scientific community has for so long settled on a suboptimal consensus will hopefully be answered by historians one day. The mistakes listed above were chosen because they illustrate the difference between the theory of black holes and the proposed successor.

What exists instead?

If black holes do not exist, what hides inside MCOs? To answer this question, let us imagine a neutron star (a pulsar) slowly accreting matter. An observer on its surface measures a period of 100 milliseconds. For simplicity, let us assume that the period remains constant as more mass is added. Then, a distant observer sees the period gradually lengthen, and the pulsar’s observed angular velocity approaches zero asymptotically. Eventually, the final pulse is observed.

This is a physical effect, not an issue of perception. To see that, an observer in a rocket hovering above the neutron star can lower a rope ladder toward the star’s surface. Then, he can descend quickly, spend some time at the bottom, and climb back up. A comparison between his watch and the clock left in the rocket reveals that time flows differently at the two locations. In fact, from the rocket’s point of view, the flow of time on the pulsar’s surface eventually slows down to zero.

The same applies to larger bodies. As they collapse, the flow of time on their surface (and inside them) slows down from the perspective of a distant observer. A super-MCO at the center of a galaxy does not have a black-hole-like event horizon. Nor does a singularity exist there. Instead, its matter is in a state of continuous collapse. The closer it gets to forming an event horizon, the more slowly this limit is being approached. And here comes the twist: the limit is never reached, neither according to an external observer nor according to a comoving observer.

What do we call the objects in the state of such continuous, asymptotic collapse? After some time, the surrounding metric closely mimics that of a black hole, so why don’t we just call them “black holes”? Unfortunately, this may be very confusing to someone reading established literature, because this new type of object lacks the features of a black hole: no collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius, no black-hole-like event horizon, no singularity. Similarly, other terms, such as black hole mimicker, frozen star, asymptotically collapsing object, eternally collapsing object, or horizonless ultracompact object, are already taken. Therefore, a new term is needed. For the purposes of this article, the term space blister will be used.

What does falling into a space blister feel like? What does an observer experience as he stands on the surface of the hypothetical accreting pulsar or flies his rocket into Sagittarius A*? As can be done using the black hole model, we can calculate the proper time required to reach the event horizon (i.e., the proper time separating the comoving observer from the final pulse in the pulsar’s case). Going forward, I will refer to it as the remaining time. So, let the observer pull out his phone and set the timer to his remaining time.

The observer waits for the countdown. He sees things moving at great speed and feels the full force of nature to the very last second. If he is on the pulsar, he sees the Universe spin ten times a second, while the star beneath him approaches its Schwarzschild radius (we can use this approximation because the star is rotating “slowly”). If he is flying into Sagittarius A*, he sees the blackness closing in. He observes light from distant stars bending above him, much as one would just before crossing the event horizon of a supermassive black hole. And then, exactly when the timer is supposed to ring…

It does not. Time itself ends just before it can happen. This moment is never reached, and there is no “after.” All physical processes cease, including the observer’s ability to perceive the flow of time. You can imagine this as a movie whose penultimate frame is still on the screen. The motions initiated in previous frames do not continue into the final frame because playback slows so much that it can never be reached.

Perhaps it is hard to accept that time itself can end. However, according to current theories of black holes, time ends at the singularity in a similar way. In both cases, timelike geodesics (and other timelike curves) terminate within finite proper time. The difference is in how dramatic this end is. Unlike black holes, space blisters do not have a singularity causing the ultra-violent ripping and tearing, although the observer’s doom is imminent nonetheless.

Consider spacetime $ℳ$ , fully described by coordinates $(t, x, y, z) \in ℝ^{4}$ with a metric corresponding to the line element ${d τ}^{2} = e^{- 2 t^{2}} {d t}^{2} - {d x}^{2} - {d y}^{2} - {d z}^{2}$ . Note that $ℳ$ is flat, so it satisfies Einstein’s equations in a vacuum. Moreover, the proper time along the geodesic $(t \in ℝ, 0, 0, 0)$ is finite: $\int_{- \infty}^{+ \infty} e^{- t^{2}} d t = \sqrt{π}$ . In fact, it is easy to verify that for all timelike curves in $ℳ$ , their associated proper time is finite and bounded. This illustrates how, without violating the laws of general relativity, the flow of time can stop even in a flat spacetime. The manifold in the space blister model, although incomplete and mathematically extendible, is not extendible physically.

Which model is better?

The first well-known model of gravitational collapse was proposed by Oppenheimer and Snyder in 1939. The OS model is compatible with the concepts described herein and can be treated as a model of a space blister. The authors do not analyze what happens after the remaining time runs out, except to note that, once it does, the comoving observer can no longer send signals from the star. Although this suggests bits of the “the flow of time must continue” way of thinking, it has no bearing on their model. In the spacetime they describe, the event horizon and the singularity do not form.

In subsequent models, the implicit assumption that the flow of time must continue is clearly visible. In models such as that of Penrose (1965), an observer crosses the horizon and falls into the singularity. Eddington–Finkelstein coordinates are used because the coordinates of a distant observer cannot meaningfully describe spacetimes containing black holes.

Noteworthily, Penrose (2002) also writes: “It would be unreasonable to suppose that the observer’s experience could simply cease after some finite time, without his encountering some form of violent agency.” This is an explicit form of the “the flow of time must continue” assumption. Compare how complicated the picture derived from this assumption is with the situation when it is absent. Eddington–Finkelstein or Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates are not needed to describe a space blister. The coordinates of a distant observer are sufficient. What Penrose arbitrarily judged as “unreasonable” is in fact conceptually simpler (fewer unintuitive concepts), clearer and more coherent (no paradoxes), and mathematically more elegant (no singularities or unintuitive coordinate systems).

As wrong assumptions had led physicists to bad models, several problematic ideas arose. The following problems can be easily solved by abandoning black holes in favor of space blisters: bursts of Hawking radiation, violation of baryon number, the information loss paradox, breakdown of physical laws at the singularity, the firewall paradox, white holes and wormholes, cosmic censorship, etc. Unfortunately, abandoning black holes would also render much of the theory developed over several past decades vacuous. The amount of wasted effort is heartbreaking.

What about the presence of supposedly mounting observational evidence for black holes? Guidry (2019) notes that such evidence is strong but circumstantial (this seems to be the consensus; see also, for example, Chruściel, 2020) and tends to fall into three categories: (1) binary stars in which an unseen companion is too massive to be a neutron star, (2) movement of stars indicating the presence of supermassive compact objects in centers of galaxies, and (3) mergers of MCOs detected by gravitational wave detectors. None of those observations indicates the presence of an event horizon. Because the relevant calculations involve the metric “outside” the event horizon, which is very similar for black holes and space blisters, these observations are equally compatible with both concepts.

How to proceed when faced with two competing theories equally supported by empirical evidence? There are a few criteria, such as simplicity, internal consistency, and relations with other theories. Having considered the former two, let us finally focus on the latter. For example, Hawking (2010) claims that “the prediction of singularities means that classical general relativity is not a complete theory.” Penrose (Ibid.) also deems singularities problematic for general relativity. But are singularities really a prediction of classical general relativity? No, they are the product of the “the flow of time must continue” assumption. Therefore, in actuality, black holes break general relativity, while space blisters restore it.

What is Sagittarius A*?

Using the OS model, we can perform a very crude analysis of the space blister at Sagittarius A*. We will use equations (38) and (39) provided by Oppenheimer and Snyder (1939). To be specific, we will use the versions of these equations provided by Mitra and Singh (2013) because the originals appear to contain a few errors. We will use a spacetime manifold with polar coordinates and the metric ${d τ}^{2} = e^{ν} {d t}^{2} - e^{λ} {d r}^{2} - r^{2} (d θ^{2} + \sin^{2} θ {d φ}^{2})$ , where for very large $t$ :

e^{- λ} = 1 - {(\frac{R}{R_{b}})}^{2} {4 e^{- \frac{t}{r_{0}}} + \frac{1}{2} [3 - {(\frac{R}{R_{b}})}^{2}]}^{- 1}

and

e^{ν} = e^{λ - \frac{2 t}{r_{0}}} {\frac{e^{- \frac{t}{r_{0}}}}{4} + \frac{1}{8} [3 - {(\frac{R}{R_{b}})}^{2}]} .

In this setup, the speed of light is $c = 1$ , so our units of length and time should match. Moreover:

Assuming that $t$ is the time coordinate of a distant observer, well approximated by the time on Earth, we can use the age of the Milky Way to investigate the current state of the super-MCO at its core. This is approximately 13 billion years, that is $t \approx 4 \times 10^{17}$ seconds (Gallart et al., 2019).
$r_{0}$ is the Schwarzschild radius. The mass of Sgr A* is estimated to be 4.3 million Sun masses, that is around $8.5 \times 10^{36}$ kilograms (Abuter et al., 2023). Using the formula $r_{s} = \frac{2 G M}{c^{2}}$ , this implies a radius of around $1.3 \times 10^{10}$ meters, i.e., $r_{0} \approx 42$ light-seconds.
In the OS model, $\frac{R}{R_{b}}$ is the coordinate related to the distance from the origin, with $\frac{R}{R_{b}} = 0$ at the center of the space blister and $\frac{R}{R_{b}} = 1$ at its boundary. Since so much time has passed, the boundary can be assumed to be almost at the Schwarzschild radius.

Simple calculations give us approximate values:

	At the center of Sgr A*	At the boundary of Sgr A*
$e^{λ}$	$1$	$e^{9.5 \times 10^{15}}$
$e^{ν}$	$e^{- 1.9 \times 10^{16}}$	$e^{- 9.5 \times 10^{15}}$

Results indicate that the situation at the center of Sagittarius A* is far from predicted by any black hole model. Instead of a singularity, space is locally flat, with spatial distances corresponding to the frame of a distant observer. The only difference is in the flow of time, which is approximately $e^{9.5 \times 10^{15}}$ times slower than on Earth. The flow of time has practically stopped there.

Meanwhile, at the Schwarzschild radius, time seems to flow much faster (by a factor of $e^{4.8 \times 10^{15}}$ ) than at the center, although still extremely slowly compared to our clocks. The line element in the radial direction and the volume element are $e^{4.8 \times 10^{15}}$ times larger in the proper frame than in the coordinate frame. This is consistent with a gravity well diagram showing an almost vertical slope at the Schwarzschild radius, then tapering off, and rounded at the bottom. This picture, far from that of a bottomless hole, looks more like a swollen blister, filled to the brim with stalled, degenerate matter.

Unfortunately, the OS model is very crude, and the picture it presents is a gross approximation. Although it is qualitatively informative, its quantitative predictions are not reliable. Moreover, it cannot answer key questions about the nature of space blisters: What is the total volume? What is the proper density? What is the remaining time for matter at various distances from the center? What if it spins? How does its structure depend on the initial distribution of matter? What if it is a product of a merger of two smaller space blisters? And so on. To answer these questions, more sophisticated models are needed.

A note on coordinate transformations

The OS model is often considered as the first to describe the collapse of a star into a black hole (see, for example, Guidry, 2019; Hawking and Penrose, 2010; or Hawking, 2016). This is yet another mistake that needs to be addressed.

Let $ℳ$ be a spacetime manifold that corresponds to a certain physical reality that we want to model. Let us describe a patch of $ℳ$ using an inverse coordinate map $C$ such that, for some points $x \in ℝ^{4}$ , we have $C (x) \in ℳ$ . Let us find all points $x \in ℝ^{4}$ such that $C (x) \in ℳ$ : let $𝒜 = {x \in ℝ^{4} : C (x) \in ℳ}$ . That is, $𝒜$ is the maximal physical extent of our coordinates. Obviously, $𝒜 \subseteq ℝ^{4}$ and $C (𝒜) \subseteq ℳ$ . Consider the following possibilities:

$𝒜 = ℝ^{4}$ and $C (𝒜) = ℳ$ – we can extend the coordinates as far as possible ( $𝒜 = ℝ^{4}$ ) and describe the entire manifold with them ( $C (𝒜) = ℳ$ ). This typically happens when we describe empty flat space using any Lorentz frame.
$𝒜$ is a proper subset of $ℝ^{4}$ ( $𝒜 \subset ℝ^{4}$ and $C (𝒜) \subseteq ℳ$ ) – for example, when we use polar coordinates.
$C (𝒜)$ is a proper subset of $ℳ$ ( $𝒜 \subseteq ℝ^{4}$ and $C (𝒜) \subset ℳ$ ) – here, our coordinate system does not describe the entire manifold. For example, Schwarzschild coordinates do not describe points at the horizon of a black hole due to a coordinate singularity.
$C (x)$ for some $x \notin 𝒜$ is “well-behaved” – in such cases, we are tempted to extend our manifold $ℳ$ so that it also includes points that do not correspond to physical reality. Examples include regions III and IV of the Kruskal–Szekeres diagram, white holes described by retarded Eddington-Finkelstein coordinates, and certain extensions of the Kerr-Newman metric.

Let us say that we have an initial inverse coordinate map $C_{1}$ that describes a region of spacetime. Then, we introduce new coordinates $C_{2}$ that partially overlap $C_{1}$ but also describe points not described by $C_{1}$ . How do we know whether we are in situation (3) or (4)? That is, how do we know which one is true: (3) our coordinate transformation grants access to important regions of spacetime not described by initial coordinates, or (4) our coordinate transformation introduced unphysical regions of spacetime that do not correspond to physical reality?

The point is that even if we can make a coordinate transformation that extends our manifold, it does not mean we should. Such transformations ought to be carefully justified. If they are not, mistakes are made. Historically, wormholes and parallel universes were proposed due to such extensions. Currently, their physicality is strongly in doubt. Perhaps one day the consensus will form that not only regions III and IV of the maximally extended Schwarzschild spacetime are unphysical, but also region II.

Now, return to the OS model. The first coordinates they use (equation 1) describe a certain region of spacetime. Let us call this region $ℳ_{OS}$ . The second coordinates they use (equation 13) could describe points outside of $ℳ_{OS}$ (for example, when $τ$ is sufficiently large), but their analysis is not concerned with such points. These coordinates are introduced solely to facilitate calculations for the problem defined in terms of the former coordinates. $ℳ_{OS}$ is thus the entire manifold they consider, and their conclusions do not go beyond $ℳ_{OS}$ .

If someone introduces a coordinate transformation to discuss points that are not in $ℳ_{OS}$ , then (a) we are no longer considering the OS model, but its extension created by somebody else, and (b) one has to argue carefully why such an extension is warranted. For example, if such an extension includes an Einstein–Rosen bridge, one cannot argue that “Oppenheimer and Snyder showed that wormholes exist.” The same applies to coordinate transformations that add to $ℳ_{OS}$ the creation of a black hole. The popular claim that “Oppenheimer and Snyder describe the collapse into a black hole” is an unwarranted overinterpretation.

One final remark is in order. The space blister model is compatible with the following postulate about the Universe’s spacetime manifold: spacetime has a trivial topology, is diffeomorphic to $ℝ^{4}$ , and can be described by a single coordinate system. This postulate rules out black-hole-like event horizons, wormholes, singularities, closed timelike curves, cosmic strings, and other such theoretical oddities. Maybe things are much simpler than we thought.

Summary

In this article, I suggest that stationary models are inappropriate for massive compact objects (MCOs) and that non-stationary models should be used instead. Ideas related to black holes are mostly based on stationary solutions to Einstein’s equations and should therefore be disregarded. Instead, new dynamic models must be developed to investigate the properties of MCOs.

As an example, I use the model proposed by Oppenheimer and Snyder (1939) to investigate the nature of Sagittarius A*. The object in the middle of our galaxy does not have a singularity or a black-hole-like event horizon. Instead, at the center of Sagittarius A*, space is locally flat with spatial dimensions corresponding to those of a distant observer but with a much slower flow of time. Moreover, at the outer boundary, near the Schwarzschild radius, proper distances in the radial direction are significantly larger in the proper frame than in the coordinates frame. The flow of time is heavily retarded there, but not as much as at the center.

After the publication of the OS model, there were two paths: either (1) to take this model at face value and follow up by developing more non-stationary models that would allow to further investigate properties of MCOs in a dynamic setting, or (2) to ignore the model’s explicit implications and reframe them in a way serving the idea of stationary black holes. The physicists followed the latter.

Various mistakes led to this. When one adopts the viewpoint that non-stationary solutions are the way forward, some of these mistakes become clear. These include (1) a general bias in favor of stationary solutions, (2) an assumption that, absent some violent event, the flow of time must continue, and (3) unscrupulous extensions of spacetime to unphysical regions with dodgy coordinate transformations.

Unfortunately, at the bifurcation in 1939, the scientific consensus went down the wrong path. Since then, too much emotion, money, and effort have been invested in this research area to let it go easily. What we have in front of us are two alternatives: (1) the theory of black holes with an enormous body of research but with a growing number of problems and paradoxes, and (2) a conceptually much simpler but severely underdeveloped theory that contradicts the scientific consensus. Numerous minds have already been swallowed by black holes, and plucking them back will not be easy.

Finally, it is worth pointing out that an appropriate model of MCOs is key to understanding how gravity works. This, in turn, can influence our efforts to reconcile general relativity with quantum mechanics. Maybe one reason these efforts have so far been futile is our irrational love for black holes.

References

Abuter, R., et al. (2023). Polarimetry and astrometry of NIR flares as event horizon scale, dynamical probes for the mass of Sgr A*. Astronomy & Astrophysics, 677, L10.

Chruściel, P. T. (2020). Geometry of black holes (Vol. 169). Oxford University Press.

Gallart, C., et al. (2019). Uncovering the birth of the Milky Way through accurate stellar ages with Gaia. Nature Astronomy, 3(10), 932-939.

Guidry, M. (2019). Modern general relativity: black holes, gravitational waves, and cosmology. Cambridge University Press.

Hawking, S. (2016). A brief history of time: from big bang to black holes. Random House.

Hawking, S., & Penrose, R. (2010). The nature of space and time. Princeton University Press.

Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S., & Wheeler, J. A. (2017). Gravitation. Princeton University Press.

Mitra, A., & Singh, K. K. (2013). The mass of the Oppenheimer–Snyder-black hole: only finite mass quasi-black holes. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 22(9), 1350054.

Oppenheimer, J. R., & Snyder, H. (1939). On continued gravitational contraction. Physical Review, 56(5), 455-459.

Penrose, R. (1965). Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. Physical Review Letters, 14(3), 57-59.

Penrose, R. (2002). “Golden Oldie”: Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity. General Relativity and Gravitation, 34(7), 1141-1165.

Penrose, R. (2007). The road to reality. Random House.

Susskind, L., & Cabannes, A. (2023). General relativity: the theoretical minimum. Random House.

How to cite

To cite this article in print, you can use the following template:

Narkiewicz A. (2026). Black holes do not exist. https://solitaires-online.com/black-holes-do-not-exist/, date accessed 2026-01-06.

To cite this article on a website, please link it using the name of the article, for example:

<a href="https://solitaires-online.com/black-holes-do-not-exist/">Black holes do not exist (by A. Narkiewicz)</a>

Rebuttals

I am fully aware that this article contains controversial ideas and some people will be quick to find mistakes in it. I am very concerned about the soundness of the reasoning contained herein, so I welcome criticism. Feel free to send me your comments. Rebuttals disputing my claims are especially welcome. If someone can show that space blisters make no sense, I will be more than happy to take this article down.

This, however, has not happened yet. The criticism I receive mostly belongs to one of the following categories: (1) the author of the criticism did not read my argument carefully and is arguing against points I did not make, (2) the author of the criticism is making mistakes himself. To illustrate this, I am posting here the rebuttals I receive, along with my responses. Please make sure that you are familiar with them before sending your comments so as not to repeat ideas that have already been debunked.

Contact me using the following email address: black.holes.dont.exist@gmail.com. Although email is my preferred mode of communication, you can also reach me using WhatsApp. Thank you.

Moreover, I would like to make an offer to anyone willing to thoroughly review this article (including checking math etc.). I am willing to pay $1000 for any such review. To ensure fairness and safety of this transaction, we can use upwork.com as an intermediary. Yes, this offer applies to people from any country as long as they speak English and are well-versed in general relativity. If you are interested, please send me your CV along with a few sentences explaining why you are interested in writing such a review.

I reserve the right to respond to only selected applications. I may also use the feedback I receive to improve this article. Therefore, slight discrepancies may appear between the current version of the text and the content of the previously published rebuttals.

Previous versions

This is the second draft of this document. The previous version can be found here:

Black holes do not exist – the 2026-01-08 draft