By the way, Efcleethees as a transliteration of Ευκλείδης is pathetic in several ways....His scholarship seems to be as careless and lacking in this area as it is in his analysis of black holes.
Yes, and thank you for pointing that out. As Crothers demonstrated, not everyone knows the Greek alphabet.
Coming up with a non back hole solution to the orbit of S2 is somewhat difficult.
Thank you. I found this reference:
S. Gillessen, F. Eisenhauer, S. Trippe, T. Alexander, R. Genzel, F. Martins, T. Ott. Monitoring stellar orbits around the massive black hole in the galactic center. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.4674
That gives me an excuse to discuss the least mathematical of the 17 papers Crothers has published in Progress in Physics:
Stephen J Crothers. A brief history of black holes. Progress in Physics, April 2006, Volume 2, pages 54-57. http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2006/PP-05-10.PDF
I quoted most of that paper's abstract in this thread's opening post. Here follow some excerpts from the paper itself.
Stephen J Crothers:
Black holes are now “seen” everywhere by the astronomers, even though no one has ever found an event horizon anywhere. Consequently, public opinion has been persuaded that the black hole is a fact of Nature and that anyone who questions the contention must be a crackpot. It has become a rather lucrative business, this black hole. Quite a few have made fame and fortune peddling the shady story.
Yet it must not be forgotten that all the arguments for the black hole are theoretical, based solely upon the erroneous Hilbert solution and the meaningless Kruskal-Szekeres extension on it. One is therefore lead to wonder what it is that astronomers actually “see” when they claim that they have found yet another black hole here or there.
Among other things, they see S2 orbiting a completely dark object of about 4 million solar masses.
Stephen J Crothers:
It has been recently proved that the black hole and the expanding Universe are not predicted by General Relativity at all [12, 13], in any circumstances.
Crothers is citing himself. His reference  is the paper I discussed in post #17 above. His reference  generalizes the errors of reference  to a non-zero cosmological constant.