that Einstein was wrong and that black holes cannot exist.
There are two literal howlers that emerge in the question, and it's well to consider each in turn:
a = 2k M/ c2 R
In truth, though Einstein provided a quantitative method to estimate gravitational bending of light, he himself never believed a celestial body could collapse in on itself such that its own light rays would never escape.
That didn't emerge until Karl Schwarzschild showed the Einstein field equations could be used to show such collapse. A simplified threshold for making this cut is given by the well known Schwarzschild radius or:
R(s) = 2GM/c2
where G is the Newtonian gravitational constant, c is the speed of light in vacuo, and M is the gravitating mass. Once a stellar remnant collapses within this radius, light cannot escape and the object is no longer visible. R(s) then is a characteristic radius associated with every mass of macroscopic scale. It is this that (technically) gave rise to the black hole concept.
(Incidentally, the term "black hole" never existed until 1964 when it appeared in a science article written by journalist Ann Ewing.)
Some recent titles of papers on black holes appearing in recent issues of the Ap. J.:
'Illuminating Massive Black Holes with White Dwarfs: Orbital Dynamics and High-energy Transients from Tidal Interactions'
'Single-epoch Black Hole Mass Estimators for Broad-line Active Galactic Nuclei: Recalibrating Hβ with a New Approach'
'Roche-lobe Overflow Systems Powered by Black Holes in Young Star Clusters: The Importance of Dynamical Exchanges'
All of these appeared in Ap. J., Vol. 794, No. 1, Oct. 10. 2014
Again, and not being facetious, if black holes don't exist why all the papers on them?
The point emphasized is that if black holes genuinely were an impossible fiction, they’d never be granted the space they have in a peer-reviewed journal like the Ap. J.
As for the claim that "Einstein definitely stole much of his work from others, simply plagiarising them" - all I can say is: ‘Bollocks’! What evidence is there for this? WHO made the claim and where? In what peer-reviewed paper or source? If it is just sappy opinion blabbed in some rag of a newspaper the claim isn't worth anything. There has to be substance to it. This again reinforces the cautionary note that what must be careful about what one reads and always do very careful cross-checking. Don't believe the first thing you see even if it might resonate at some level.
Also, if Einstein did plagiarize previous work, how come no other serious physicists have come to this conclusion?
Look, the world is full of iconoclasts all trying to make a name for themselves (like that astronomer who claimed to 'prove black holes don't exist' cited in the Daily Mail) and some do - for a time. But it never lasts, because ultimately it is usually found they were too quick on the draw and overlooked key facts - as you did in merely putting this question forward- presuming that Einstein himself had anything to do with black holes.
The questioner clearly couldn’t accept this response and wrote in a further comment after giving his ratings:
"Look up "Relativity priority dispute" on wikipedia to see that it isn't just fringe people who have evidence that Einstein ripped off other scientists' ideas. Roger Schlafly now has a book out "How Einstein ruined physics", which goes into detail on this issue.”
As I responded to the questioner:
The Nazis just couldn't stomach that a Jew could develop ground breaking theories of physics, because - of course - they held Jews in such contempt and even consigned them to a "final solution".
"Roger Schlafly writes two blogs. At Dark Buzz, a science-focused blog, he conveys "ideas and information that are essential to understanding our world...ignored by the mainstream media".[ There, he engages in quite a bit of Einstein-bashing and frequently labels him a plagiarist and fraud. He frequently writes about Henri Poincare, a French physicist who he believes is a victim of under-appreciation because of Einstein, despite that everyone seems to know the name
He writes from (as you'd expect) the perspective of a right-wing, white male heterosexual American Christian with libertarian leanings, and has cited the white nationalist website VDARE”
Like Larry Schweikart with his false liberal history nonsense, Schlafly turns out to be another putz who wants to turn scientific iconoclast. But why would anyone take the scribblings of a white nationalist sympathizer and the son of Phyllis Schlafly seriously? Besides, his specialty isn’t even physics but electrical engineering and math. While true, physics is needed in electrical engineering and math is used in physics, neither Schlafly specialty is as concentrated as one expects in graduate specialist Physics courses. Fair question: Could he pass a Ph.D. comprehensive exam in mechanics, thermodynamics, general relativity or quantum mechanics? I seriously doubt it. (I will post one of these soon, to see if he can.)
I mean, as one of the (negative) reviewers of Schlafly’s book also noted (correctly):
"Lorentz himself said in 1927:
'Only the true time existed for me. I regarded the transformation of time merely as a heuristic working hypothesis. Thus, the theory of relativity is, in fact, exclusively Einstein's product.' "
So if even Hendrik Lorentz acknowledged Einstein’s priority in special relativity – why not Roger Schlafly or the person who asked the Einstein question at All Experts? Well, not Schlafly because as a white nationalist sympathizer it would not be his wont to be fair to a Jew – who white nationalists and earlier Reich propagandizers never regarded as equal to "Aryans". Hence who'd try to diminish Einstein’s accomplishments. As for the naïve questioner, well, all I can say is that he was misled by Schlafly’s apparent academic creds into buying into this hogswill and that he really had a case – he didn’t.
Others who may dispute this - for whatever reason, even if they genuinely question Einstein's honesty - are invited to look up and read his most seminal paper on special relativity: 'Does the Inertia of a Body Depend On Its Energy Content?' (Annalen Der Physik, Vol. 17, 1905). Therein the doubters will see first hand how Einstein ingeniously used the Lorentzian radical :
[1 - (v/c)2)]1/2
Einstein deftly uses this to arrive at his most famous equation:
E = Mc2
To quote the reviewer again:
“In summary, if nothing of what we think Einstein did was actually his original work, how in the world can we say that Einstein ruined physics? Assuming that Physics is ruined, and assuming Dr. Schlafly's thesis is correct regarding Einstein's dishonesty, I would rationally tend to blame those who `really' developed Modern Physics, those of us who were so naïve as to allow ourselves to be deceived by Einstein for over 100 years, or both.... But not Einstein, whose only crime was -apparently- to be a thief!!!”
Points well taken!
And further advice to those who jump on claims that seek to take down a genuine genius of physics: Look at the source! Find out all you can about him or her before jumping the gun and conferring validity on his assertions!