"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:7z5Qe.132906$E95.76927@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:aq%Pe.129590$E95.58692@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:qoOPe.129290$E95.2723@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...


Andrew
Hamilton is A professor lecturing on the subject
and is saying the same thing, there is only one
interpretation at the event horizon for a non-
rotating, non-charged black hole and it doesn't
have a singularity.

"There is one interpretation" is clearly false.

OK, other than you, I have only seen one
interpretation from all the experts I have read
including the pages you cited though I accept
you read them differently.

I am not an expert, clearly. But this "reasonable" interpretation is
potentially falsifiable. It may derive a spectral radiation curve that is
not blackbody, or is blackbody except for "this lump over here", so then
it falls back on an intervening plasma to keep us from seeing it.

No, I don't think so. We are discussing what
happens inside the event horizon so it can't
be observed either way. The only way it might
be observed would be if you were proposing
"new physics" which deviated from GR just
before the horizon in order to include a
singularity at the horizon. However, you
aren't proposing that, merely a difference of
understanding about what GR says so I don't see
that it could be tested.

I think Martin got a bit annoyed when he talked
of your attitude being a bit netkookish, apologies
to all if I misread that, but it wasn't because
you asked the question but that you seemed to
discount the answer when it wasn't what you wanted.

I got two answers for the same person, George. First the images are
spectral, then the images are not visible because of intervening plasma.

I must say I have found it difficult at times to
know if you are asking about a free hole where you
would see distorted images of external objects or
a hole with an acretion disk where the outside
universe is hidden by the disk.

It appeared he was not answering my questions, but simply countering *any*
point I raised, regardless of whether it countered his own earlier
statements. He seemd to be disingenuous. I had not seen this side of him
before, so likely it is just my cold playing with my mind.

I suspect it was more likely to be size 12's in the
question. (BTW, apparently my uncle took size 14!).

This is your interpretation. Because the experts I cite
(and more) don't allow us to reach "the singularity at the
center", since the BH does eventually evaporate.

Look at the page you cite later

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modul...arzschild.html

The bottom diagram shows the "foolish observer" reaching
the central singularity in a short time, milliseconds to
hours for real black holes. Evaporation takes billions
of years.

George, thank you. Yes, this is what is printed on all these "intro"
pages. Just like the "stretching" of light, it is suitable for one who
doesn't dig any deeper. I expect more of myself than this.

So the strain you go through to extend Newton into a
black hole is your own fault.

None of this is Newton, pure GR.

Pure GR creates a new Universe inside,

This is simply where we disagree, I think the page you
posted _is_ pur GR and it doesn't have a new universe.
YMMV as they say.

that expands and cools (in its internal space). Just like our own
Universe does. That someone who doesn't want to believe this is true,
that wants to believe this Universe is unique, that our local laws apply
where light cannot come back from (except by evaporation), is provincial.

Perhaps, but that's not what _I_ am saying, I am saying
that I believe standard GR says if there is another
universe, it starts at r=0, not r=2m. That's all, I
only dispute the boundary, not the concept.

If we are in Klein bottle, I'd like to know. I know you wouldn't.

I would! I also take concepts like the duodecahedral
closed universe seriously. I will accept whatever
observations show. Some ideas would take more skill
at visualisation than I might muster however :-(

And when you factor in the "slower local clock" as you
approach the event horizon, falling at "the speed of light"
*non-locally*, isn't possible in *this* Universe.

That doesn't make sense to me. Look at the page you
cited again, the slope of the infalling "foolish
observer" is that of "falling at c" as he crosses
the event horizon. His (local) clock is ticking off
the time in equal steps along his worldline. The
reason we see his clock slowing is that the outgoing
lightlike lines take progressively longer to reach
the left edge of the graphic where a static observer
might be located. Accroding to that observer, the
infalling observer is moving at c even though he
appears slowed when seen through a telescope. That
is just an optical illusion.

An illusion created by the fact that spacetime there starts disallowing
light to propagate to you, and redshifts even that.

Right, but note it is a remote effect. Locally
nothing changes, the light cones bear the same
relationship to the falling observer both inside
and outside.

The redshift is due to the position the light is released from in curved
space, the "proper motion" of the object emitting the light, and the
process by which the light was emitted.

The first two are correct, nothing happens to the
process. Local laws are unaffected.

I am an idiot.

Then hearty "Welcome." We need to work on a secret handshake! ;)

Note I don't just try to find fault with your stuff,
I am happy to find faults in my own too. Errors help
noone.

You said "towards anyone outside
the BH." but I considered infalling light. My
mistake, you are right on that one. It only stops
us viewing what happens though, it doesn't stop
it happening.

Science draws a distinction between what is verifiable, and what is not.
So far, there can be no experiment that will distinguish between the
"perspective illusions of 4D spacetime" and "actual physical changes in a
Lorentz aether supported Universe". I will submit that this must still be
true in curved spacetime, but it cannot be at the event horizon... without
the formation of a separate spacetime.

I have no idea what an aether based theory would say
about the event horizon. Its radius can be calculated
in Newtonian physics and it isn't a singularity, objects
just move faster than light inside which isn't a problem.

I am NOT an aetherist, but I don't believe that it can be expeirmentally
disproven either. Ever. So if you are the size you are because of the
TLWS across your body, how big is your body as you cross the event
horizon, where c_radially_outwards is a non-sequitur?

Speed_radially_outwards is not "a non-sequitur", it has
the value zero for a distant observer but is still c
for the observer. If he had a torch tied to his foot
shining upt to his head and another shining down from
a hard hat, he would measure (almost) c for both. I say
almost because there would be a tiny effect from tidal
forces but for the right mass of super-massive black
hole the acceleration can be 1g at the horizon so his
results would be the same as a free-falling skydiver on
Earth (ignoring air resistance).

Now I read "the final singularity" to mean r=0 where
there undoubtedly is a singularity. I guess you might
read it as meaning at the horizon, but at best it
doesn't resolve the question and IMHO it supports what
I and everyone else has been telling you.

And the second reference to Baez has another identical Universe to ours
being formed up just inside the event horizon.

You mean this page?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/generichole

No.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
... all 22 pages of it. I like funny stories.

Bother. OK, I'll see what I can find. Going
to give me a hint about which page?

Again, he shows the paths of test particles falling
through the event horizon and falling for some time
before reaching either "a -spacelike- curvature
singularity" or a "weak null Cauchy horizon
singularity", whatever that means. Either way there
is nothing unusual about the region inside the
horizon prior to hitting the singularities. In fact
the text also says "just as for the Schwarzschild
solution, but no wormhole or multiple 'external
universe' sheets." so you have a diagram with a line
in the middle separating two regions and "no external
universes" shown. Clearly all of that diagram refers
to our universe. This is perhaps why I couldn't
fathom why you cited it.

A universe is formed inside. Something argued against by almost every
"first responder" to this thread.

Inside what? Not the event horizon, he specifically
says there are no external universes shown.

See the other citation then. Or Chris Hillman's.

Will do.


I think that's why Martin got the impression you are
taking a netkook attitude to this, though from past
discussions I'm somewhat surprised at your response.

You said the word: "annoyed". It is as if "this is a
question that must not be asked."

No, I think it was "why ask if you are going to
ignore any answer that conflicts with what you
have already decided." You asked about the
influence on the spectrum of the singularity
at the event horizon and the answer you got
was that there is no effect because the event
horizon isn't a physical singularity, just a
glitch in the maths.

Please reference where I *ever* used the word singularity, before somebody
else put it in my mouth. I want to know what light will look like
averaged over time, as it infalls into an event horizon.

The answer is "the same as it would from outside
other than a simple red or blue shift", the event
horizon has no specific effect. See Andrew's pages
for information on the frequency shift, IIRC he has
a map showing which occurs where.

I do not intend to argue the definition of singularity, which actual
citations support me on. I do not intend to argue how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin. It is really clear that you must make me
wrong on something. So you have done that more than a dozen times. If
you need to continue to do so, I'll just fold up shop. I cannot handle my
own ignorance in this field, and listen to you tell me that I didn't use
this word to your satisfaction, or the continuous claims that I am
inventing "new physics",

I'm no longer sure if you intended it but you have
implied that the event horizon averages the spectrum
over time. That is not something predicted by GR and
would be "new physics".

and now your really snotty remark about *my* mind being closed.

That is not what I intended and I don't think that
at all, I apologise if you feel slighted. What I
meant was that I think some of your answers have
given people that impression and they have responded
in a certain way as a result.

GR predicts that our Big Bang was like the inside of an event horizon, in
some solutions.

Yes it does, and I don't disagree with much
else you said so snip.

... Now if I can guess just which "uk" email address he was...
I think is right...

That's correct.

best regards
George

Dear George Dishman,

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:7z5Qe.132906$E95.76927@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:aq%Pe.129590$E95.58692@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message
news:qoOPe.129290$E95.2723@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in
message ...


Andrew
Hamilton is A professor lecturing on the subject
and is saying the same thing, there is only one
interpretation at the event horizon for a non-
rotating, non-charged black hole and it doesn't
have a singularity.

"There is one interpretation" is clearly false.

OK, other than you, I have only seen one
interpretation from all the experts I have read
including the pages you cited though I accept
you read them differently.

I am not an expert, clearly. But this "reasonable"
interpretation is potentially falsifiable. It may derive a
spectral radiation curve that is not blackbody, or is
blackbody except for "this lump over here", so then it falls
back on an intervening plasma to keep us from seeing it.

No, I don't think so. We are discussing what
happens inside the event horizon so it can't
be observed either way. The only way it might
be observed would be if you were proposing
"new physics" which deviated from GR just
before the horizon in order to include a
singularity at the horizon. However, you
aren't proposing that, merely a difference of
understanding about what GR says so I don't see
that it could be tested.

And our disagreement stands. The difference can be seen, George,
if there is no intervening plasma. *IF* the CMBRM is simply the
inside of the horizon. If there is an intervening plasma, then
all my fuss is about getting the ability to have heavy elements,
and coalescence, detectable right up to the CMBRM. So if the
light infall to the horizon does happen to be a blackbody, no
matter which of the cases I run the simulation for, then it is
remotely possible the CMBRM is just light from our container
Universe.

I think Martin got a bit annoyed when he talked
of your attitude being a bit netkookish, apologies
to all if I misread that, but it wasn't because
you asked the question but that you seemed to
discount the answer when it wasn't what you wanted.

I got two answers for the same person, George. First the
images are spectral, then the images are not visible
because of intervening plasma.

I must say I have found it difficult at times to
know if you are asking about a free hole where you
would see distorted images of external objects or
a hole with an acretion disk where the outside
universe is hidden by the disk.

And the answer is "yes", I am asking about both. And I believe I
was clear by the time Martin weighed in, that I was going to run
several simulations, including both cases.

It appeared he was not answering my questions, but simply
countering *any* point I raised, regardless of whether it
countered his own earlier statements. He seemd to be
disingenuous. I had not seen this side of him before, so
likely it is just my cold playing with my mind.

I suspect it was more likely to be size 12's in the
question. (BTW, apparently my uncle took size 14!).

I didn't make him write what he did, George. What he wrote was
clear.

This is your interpretation. Because the experts I cite
(and more) don't allow us to reach "the singularity at the
center", since the BH does eventually evaporate.

Look at the page you cite later

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modul...arzschild.html

The bottom diagram shows the "foolish observer" reaching
the central singularity in a short time, milliseconds to
hours for real black holes. Evaporation takes billions
of years.

George, thank you. Yes, this is what is printed on all these
"intro" pages. Just like the "stretching" of light, it is
suitable for one who doesn't dig any deeper. I expect more of
myself than this.

So the strain you go through to extend Newton into a
black hole is your own fault.

None of this is Newton, pure GR.

Pure GR creates a new Universe inside,

This is simply where we disagree, I think the page you
posted _is_ pur GR and it doesn't have a new universe.
YMMV as they say.

that expands and cools (in its internal space). Just like our
own Universe does. That someone who doesn't want to believe
this
is true, that wants to believe this Universe is unique, that
our
local laws apply where light cannot come back from (except by
evaporation), is provincial.

Perhaps, but that's not what _I_ am saying, I am saying
that I believe standard GR says if there is another
universe, it starts at r=0, not r=2m. That's all, I
only dispute the boundary, not the concept.

OK. I certainly cannot dissuade you. However, you probably
still believe that all the infall meets a sitcky end, and then
sometime later the interior Universe forms? So that no
information from the external Universe arrives unaltered? So
that this central mass represents the "nearly infinite
temperature" involved in slamming matter to a dead stop from "a
fall at c". Such that we must have the intervening plasma (or a
hell of a red shift) to survive today.

If we are in Klein bottle, I'd like to know. I know you
wouldn't.

I would! I also take concepts like the duodecahedral
closed universe seriously. I will accept whatever
observations show. Some ideas would take more skill
at visualisation than I might muster however :-(

It might be different if we were raised in a civilzation less
concentrated on itself, with infinite horizons, that was capable
of interstellar travel. So we depend on each other to get our
heads above the muck. Until then, we all need each other.

And when you factor in the "slower local clock" as you
approach the event horizon, falling at "the speed of light"
*non-locally*, isn't possible in *this* Universe.

That doesn't make sense to me. Look at the page you
cited again, the slope of the infalling "foolish
observer" is that of "falling at c" as he crosses
the event horizon. His (local) clock is ticking off
the time in equal steps along his worldline. The
reason we see his clock slowing is that the outgoing
lightlike lines take progressively longer to reach
the left edge of the graphic where a static observer
might be located. Accroding to that observer, the
infalling observer is moving at c even though he
appears slowed when seen through a telescope. That
is just an optical illusion.

An illusion created by the fact that spacetime there starts
disallowing light to propagate to you, and redshifts even
that.

Right, but note it is a remote effect. Locally
nothing changes, the light cones bear the same
relationship to the falling observer both inside
and outside.

The redshift is due to the position the light is released from
in curved space, the "proper motion" of the object emitting
the light, and the process by which the light was emitted.

The first two are correct, nothing happens to the
process. Local laws are unaffected.

Yes. I got "carried away".

I am an idiot.

Then hearty "Welcome." We need to work on a secret
handshake! ;)

Note I don't just try to find fault with your stuff,
I am happy to find faults in my own too. Errors help
[no one].

You said "towards anyone outside
the BH." but I considered infalling light. My
mistake, you are right on that one. It only stops
us viewing what happens though, it doesn't stop
it happening.

Science draws a distinction between what is verifiable, and
what is not. So far, there can be no experiment that will
distinguish between the "perspective illusions of 4D
spacetime" and "actual physical changes in a Lorentz
aether supported Universe". I will submit that this must
still be true in curved spacetime, but it cannot be at the
event horizon... without the formation of a separate
spacetime.

I have no idea what an aether based theory would say
about the event horizon. Its radius can be calculated
in Newtonian physics and it isn't a singularity, objects
just move faster than light inside which isn't a problem.

Ilja has done a creditable job in extending the aether to curved
space. And I don't know what it would predict for the event
horizon either.

I am NOT an aetherist, but I don't believe that it can be
expeirmentally disproven either. Ever. So if you are the
size you are because of the TLWS across your body, how big is
your body as you cross the event horizon, where
c_radially_outwards is a non-sequitur?

Speed_radially_outwards is not "a non-sequitur", it has
the value zero for a distant observer but is still c
for the observer.

Which means "radially outwards" is no longer in his present
Universe, but in his past. But we will disagree. I just don't
see how a 2D+t surface can map to an internal 3D+t spacetime. I
do see how a 2D+t surface can map to an internal 3D instant.

If he had a torch tied to his foot
shining upt to his head and another shining down from
a hard hat, he would measure (almost) c for both. I say
almost because there would be a tiny effect from tidal
forces but for the right mass of super-massive black
hole the acceleration can be 1g at the horizon so his
results would be the same as a free-falling skydiver on
Earth (ignoring air resistance).

Or "relativistic plasma resistance"... ;)

Now I read "the final singularity" to mean r=0 where
there undoubtedly is a singularity. I guess you might
read it as meaning at the horizon, but at best it
doesn't resolve the question and IMHO it supports what
I and everyone else has been telling you.

And the second reference to Baez has another identical
Universe to ours being formed up just inside the event
horizon.

You mean this page?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/generichole

No.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
... all 22 pages of it. I like funny stories.

Bother. OK, I'll see what I can find. Going
to give me a hint about which page?

Nevermind. He is being "mysterious", he is not explicit, but
relies on allegory. The last page, page 22 (I think?). The path
(through the story) is important to his purposes, the destination
less so. Stick with Hillman. And likely Chris will not talk
about *where* the initiation of separate-Universeness onsets.

Again, he shows the paths of test particles falling
through the event horizon and falling for some time
before reaching either "a -spacelike- curvature
singularity" or a "weak null Cauchy horizon
singularity", whatever that means. Either way there
is nothing unusual about the region inside the
horizon prior to hitting the singularities. In fact
the text also says "just as for the Schwarzschild
solution, but no wormhole or multiple 'external
universe' sheets." so you have a diagram with a line
in the middle separating two regions and "no external
universes" shown. Clearly all of that diagram refers
to our universe. This is perhaps why I couldn't
fathom why you cited it.

A universe is formed inside. Something argued against by
almost every "first responder" to this thread.

Inside what? Not the event horizon, he specifically
says there are no external universes shown.

Inside the black hole, George.

See the other citation then. Or Chris Hillman's.

Will do.

I think that's why Martin got the impression you are
taking a netkook attitude to this, though from past
discussions I'm somewhat surprised at your response.

You said the word: "annoyed". It is as if "this is a
question that must not be asked."

No, I think it was "why ask if you are going to
ignore any answer that conflicts with what you
have already decided." You asked about the
influence on the spectrum of the singularity
at the event horizon and the answer you got
was that there is no effect because the event
horizon isn't a physical singularity, just a
glitch in the maths.

Please reference where I *ever* used the word singularity,
before somebody else put it in my mouth. I want to know
what light will look like averaged over time, as it infalls
into
an event horizon.

The answer is "the same as it would from outside
other than a simple red or blue shift", the event
horizon has no specific effect. See Andrew's pages
for information on the frequency shift, IIRC he has
a map showing which occurs where.

Good. So all I have to do is average over time, an estimated
lifetime for a BH of a "typical" size, and see what the resulting
spectrum is.

I figure the following:
"free BH" about 3 solar masses,
BH with companion about 20 solar masses,
central-galactic BH at whatever the Milky Way's is estmated to
be.
(if someone has more interesting figures, let me know)

I will figure the "clock" presented by the CMBR will determine
the initiation/completion of evaporation (temperature of CMBR vs.
Hawking temperature)

I do not intend to argue the definition of singularity, which
actual citations support me on. I do not intend to argue how
many angels can dance on the head of a pin. It is really
clear that you must make me wrong on something. So you have
done that more than a dozen times. If you need to continue to
do so, I'll just fold up shop. I cannot handle my own
ignorance in this field, and listen to you tell me that I
didn't use this word to your satisfaction, or the continuous
claims that I am inventing "new physics",

I'm no longer sure if you intended it but you have
implied that the event horizon averages the spectrum
over time. That is not something predicted by GR and
would be "new physics".

That *is* explicit in the solutions I've seen George. And next
you will point out that "well that is just the metric chosen."
We have gone around this loop before. It is not new physics, but
explicit in the derivation of an internal solution to the BH. So
if it is "new physics" it was started by Schwarzchild, Kruskal,
Edddington, and others. Blame them. I simply intend to support
or disprove this "choice of metric". And to boot, perhaps
provide a "simple" answer to the *possible* observation of the
(currently) unanswerable, and stay within the realm of known
physics.

and now your really snotty remark about *my* mind being
closed.

That is not what I intended and I don't think that
at all, I apologise if you feel slighted. What I
meant was that I think some of your answers have
given people that impression and they have responded
in a certain way as a result.

All you folks get here a
- newbies with "simple" questions, and
- friends that are working on something interesting, and
- cranks and netkooks that don't like some portion of where
science has gone or not gone and are presenting some half-baked
idea, and
- spammers that want to point out that "astro" is also an
abbreviation for "astrology".
Which of those categories do I most closely match? The orange
hair, red nose, and floppy shoes aren't mine. They are simply
impressed on me by others. Friendship requires trust, and a few
"shared beers". Maybe I just don't get better than this.

GR predicts that our Big Bang was like the inside of an
event horizon, in some solutions.

Yes it does, and I don't disagree with much
else you said so snip.

... Now if I can guess just which "uk" email address he
was...
I think is right...

That's correct.

OK.

David A. Smith

"George Dishman" schrieb
"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote
Science draws a distinction between what is verifiable, and what is not.
So far, there can be no experiment that will distinguish between the
"perspective illusions of 4D spacetime" and "actual physical changes in
a
Lorentz aether supported Universe". I will submit that this must still
be
true in curved spacetime, but it cannot be at the event horizon...
without
the formation of a separate spacetime.

I have no idea what an aether based theory would say
about the event horizon.

In my ether theory (see gr-qc/0205035), which is a metric theory of gravity
with the GR Einstein equations in a natural limit, I have an additional term
which becomes important near the horizon. It leads to stable "gravastar"
solutions with a size slightly greater than the horizon. (The "slightly"
depends
on a free parameter of the theory. If it is small enough, the frozen star
will
be de-facto indistinguishable from a GR BH from outside.)

It is interesting to note that a simple ether interpretation is possible for
every metric theory of gravity, so that the "preferred ether frame" is
defined
by harmonic coordinates. Simply

g^00 sqrt(-g) = rho
g^0i sqrt(-g) = rho v^i
g^ij sqrt(g) = rho v^i v^j - p^ij

with density rho, velocity v^i and pressure tensor p^ij of the ether. The
harmonic
condition gives the continuity and Euler equations of the ether.

If we apply this ether interpretation to GR, we have to look at the harmonic
coordinates on the GR solution for a collapsing star, with Minkowski initial
conditions (the harmonic condition is an evolution equation box T = box X^i
= 0
for the preferred coordinates and needs initial conditions). Then, the part
before
the horizon formation becomes a complete solution. That an infalling
observer
needs only finite "proper time" to reach the horizon does not mean that he
will
reach it. Proper time in an ether theory is simply "time" measured by
ether-distorted clocks and of no fundamental importance. The solution behind
the horizon becomes
unphysical.

I am NOT an aetherist, but I don't believe that it can be expeirmentally
disproven either. Ever.

What can be disproven are, of course, only particular ether theories.

Ilja

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:F_kQe.132957$E95.30758@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman,

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:7z5Qe.132906$E95.76927@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:aq%Pe.129590$E95.58692@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote
in message news:qoOPe.129290$E95.2723@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...


Andrew
Hamilton is A professor lecturing on the subject
and is saying the same thing, there is only one
interpretation at the event horizon for a non-
rotating, non-charged black hole and it doesn't
have a singularity.

"There is one interpretation" is clearly false.

OK, other than you, I have only seen one
interpretation from all the experts I have read
including the pages you cited though I accept
you read them differently.

I am not an expert, clearly. But this "reasonable" interpretation is
potentially falsifiable. It may derive a spectral radiation curve that
is not blackbody, or is blackbody except for "this lump over here", so
then it falls back on an intervening plasma to keep us from seeing it.

No, I don't think so. We are discussing what
happens inside the event horizon so it can't
be observed either way. The only way it might
be observed would be if you were proposing
"new physics" which deviated from GR just
before the horizon in order to include a
singularity at the horizon. However, you
aren't proposing that, merely a difference of
understanding about what GR says so I don't see
that it could be tested.

And our disagreement stands. The difference can be seen, George, if there
is no intervening plasma.

You are switching subjects again David. My comments
related to looking at a black hole within our galaxy
such from the outside.

*IF* the CMBRM is simply the inside of the horizon. If there is an
intervening plasma, then all my fuss is about getting the ability to have
heavy elements, and coalescence, detectable right up to the CMBRM. So if
the light infall to the horizon does happen to be a blackbody, no matter
which of the cases I run the simulation for, then it is remotely possible
the CMBRM is just light from our container Universe.

Whether it is or not, you still need to explain how
taking the current matter density and "playing the
film backwards" can avoid a hot dense plasma some
few thousands of years after the bang.

I think Martin got a bit annoyed when he talked
of your attitude being a bit netkookish, apologies
to all if I misread that, but it wasn't because
you asked the question but that you seemed to
discount the answer when it wasn't what you wanted.

I got two answers for the same person, George. First the
images are spectral, then the images are not visible
because of intervening plasma.

I must say I have found it difficult at times to
know if you are asking about a free hole where you
would see distorted images of external objects or
a hole with an acretion disk where the outside
universe is hidden by the disk.

And the answer is "yes", I am asking about both. And I believe I was
clear by the time Martin weighed in, that I was going to run several
simulations, including both cases.

Well if you are asking about both, you should not
have been surprised to get two answers, surely?

It appeared he was not answering my questions, but simply
countering *any* point I raised, regardless of whether it
countered his own earlier statements. He seemd to be
disingenuous. I had not seen this side of him before, so
likely it is just my cold playing with my mind.

I suspect it was more likely to be size 12's in the
question. (BTW, apparently my uncle took size 14!).

I didn't make him write what he did, George. What he wrote was clear.

Whatever, it's between you and him at the end of the day.

This is your interpretation. Because the experts I cite
(and more) don't allow us to reach "the singularity at the
center", since the BH does eventually evaporate.

Look at the page you cite later

http://www.phy.syr.edu/courses/modul...arzschild.html

The bottom diagram shows the "foolish observer" reaching
the central singularity in a short time, milliseconds to
hours for real black holes. Evaporation takes billions
of years.

George, thank you. Yes, this is what is printed on all these "intro"
pages. Just like the "stretching" of light, it is suitable for one who
doesn't dig any deeper. I expect more of myself than this.

So the strain you go through to extend Newton into a
black hole is your own fault.

None of this is Newton, pure GR.

Pure GR creates a new Universe inside,

This is simply where we disagree, I think the page you
posted _is_ pur GR and it doesn't have a new universe.
YMMV as they say.

that expands and cools (in its internal space). Just like our own
Universe does. That someone who doesn't want to believe this
is true, that wants to believe this Universe is unique, that our
local laws apply where light cannot come back from (except by
evaporation), is provincial.

Perhaps, but that's not what _I_ am saying, I am saying
that I believe standard GR says if there is another
universe, it starts at r=0, not r=2m. That's all, I
only dispute the boundary, not the concept.

OK. I certainly cannot dissuade you. However, you probably still believe
that all the infall meets a sitcky end, and then sometime later the
interior Universe forms?

No, when did I say anything like that? I doubt that
GR can be used across the singuolarity at r=0 so
the only answer is "we don't know". I have no
opinion on what hapens beyond that one way or the
other.

So that no information from the external Universe arrives unaltered? So
that this central mass represents the "nearly infinite temperature"
involved in slamming matter to a dead stop from "a fall at c". Such that
we must have the intervening plasma (or a hell of a red shift) to survive
today.

My views on the beginning don't involve black holes
or event horizons at all. If you read "The Elegant
Universe", I think someting along those lines, with
either dimensions unrolling or Guth's multiple
universes might produce sensible lines of research.
There might be something in brane collisions or
ekpyrotic ideas but at the moment "we don't know" is
as far as i think we can go.

It might be different if we were raised in a civilzation less concentrated
on itself, with infinite horizons, that was capable of interstellar
travel. So we depend on each other to get our heads above the muck.
Until then, we all need each other.

Sadly today's news from New Orleans makes that all
too plain.

I have no idea what an aether based theory would say
about the event horizon. Its radius can be calculated
in Newtonian physics and it isn't a singularity, objects
just move faster than light inside which isn't a problem.

Ilja has done a creditable job in extending the aether to curved space.
And I don't know what it would predict for the event horizon either.

I see he has replied but I haven't go there yet.

I am NOT an aetherist, but I don't believe that it can be expeirmentally
disproven either. Ever. So if you are the size you are because of the
TLWS across your body, how big is your body as you cross the event
horizon, where c_radially_outwards is a non-sequitur?

Speed_radially_outwards is not "a non-sequitur", it has
the value zero for a distant observer but is still c
for the observer.

Which means "radially outwards" is no longer in his present Universe, but
in his past. But we will disagree. I just don't see how a 2D+t surface
can map to an internal 3D+t spacetime. I do see how a 2D+t surface can
map to an internal 3D instant.

I think that just illustrates that it is a glitch
in the maths, both internal and external are really
3 space + 1 time, only the coordinates fail to reflect
that.

You mean this page?

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/PUB/generichole

No.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/gr/oz1.html
... all 22 pages of it. I like funny stories.

Bother. OK, I'll see what I can find. Going
to give me a hint about which page?

Nevermind. He is being "mysterious", he is not explicit, but relies on
allegory. The last page, page 22 (I think?). The path (through the
story) is important to his purposes, the destination less so. Stick with
Hillman. And likely Chris will not talk about *where* the initiation of
separate-Universeness onsets.

I'll read it anyway (I've been out of circulation
for a few days) as both the others tell me there
is no physical change at the event horizon, just
at r=0. I'm still looking for something that
supports your view so that either I can see why
what was said misled you (if you are wrong) or
discover something new I didn't know about black
holes (if you are right).

Again, he shows the paths of test particles falling
through the event horizon and falling for some time
before reaching either "a -spacelike- curvature
singularity" or a "weak null Cauchy horizon
singularity", whatever that means. Either way there
is nothing unusual about the region inside the
horizon prior to hitting the singularities. In fact
the text also says "just as for the Schwarzschild
solution, but no wormhole or multiple 'external
universe' sheets." so you have a diagram with a line
in the middle separating two regions and "no external
universes" shown. Clearly all of that diagram refers
to our universe. This is perhaps why I couldn't
fathom why you cited it.

A universe is formed inside. Something argued against by
almost every "first responder" to this thread.

Inside what? Not the event horizon, he specifically
says there are no external universes shown.

Inside the black hole, George.

Well usually people mean the horizon when they
say "inside a black hole" as "inside r=0" doesn't
make much sense.

I do not intend to argue the definition of singularity, which actual
citations support me on. I do not intend to argue how many angels can
dance on the head of a pin. It is really clear that you must make me
wrong on something. So you have done that more than a dozen times. If
you need to continue to do so, I'll just fold up shop. I cannot handle
my own ignorance in this field, and listen to you tell me that I didn't
use this word to your satisfaction, or the continuous claims that I am
inventing "new physics",

I'm no longer sure if you intended it but you have
implied that the event horizon averages the spectrum
over time. That is not something predicted by GR and
would be "new physics".

That *is* explicit in the solutions I've seen George.

And what I have seen is Andrew's site which definitely
doesn't average over time, and several other that say
things similar to his. For example the FAQ:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

"What do you see as you are falling in? Surprisingly,
you don't necessarily see anything particularly
interesting. Images of faraway objects may be
distorted in strange ways, since the black hole's
gravity bends light, but that's about it. In
particular, nothing special happens at the moment
when you cross the horizon. Even after you've crossed
the horizon, you can still see things on the outside:
after all, the light from the things on the outside
can still reach you. No one on the outside can see
you, of course, since the light from you can't escape
past the horizon."

Note in particular

"Even after you've crossed the horizon, you can
still see things on the outside"

There is nothing in that suggesting time averaging of
total flux.

And next you will point out that "well that is just the metric chosen." We
have gone around this loop before. It is not new physics, but explicit in
the derivation of an internal solution to the BH. So if it is "new
physics" it was started by Schwarzchild, Kruskal, Edddington, and others.
Blame them. I simply intend to support or disprove this "choice of
metric". And to boot, perhaps provide a "simple" answer to the *possible*
observation of the (currently) unanswerable, and stay within the realm of
known physics.

You may be confusing "the metric" and "the coordinates".
The 'choice of metric' might be between a simple hole
or charged, rotating or both such as the Kerr metric.
Coordinates don't change the physics, they are just
more or less convenient and successful in describing it.

and now your really snotty remark about *my* mind being closed.

That is not what I intended and I don't think that
at all, I apologise if you feel slighted. What I
meant was that I think some of your answers have
given people that impression and they have responded
in a certain way as a result.

All you folks get here a
- newbies with "simple" questions, and
- friends that are working on something interesting, and
- cranks and netkooks that don't like some portion of where science has
gone or not gone and are presenting some half-baked idea, and
- spammers that want to point out that "astro" is also an abbreviation for
"astrology".
Which of those categories do I most closely match? The orange hair, red
nose, and floppy shoes aren't mine. They are simply impressed on me by
others. Friendship requires trust, and a few "shared beers". Maybe I
just don't get better than this.

I had hoped it was "friends that are working on
something interesting", but I consider pointing
out what I think is a simple slip-up to a friend
as something that can be done without getting
into entrenched positions. I'm really quite
dissapointed the conversation ended up going this
way and I hope you realise I am trying to retrieve
it.

best regards
George

"Ilja Schmelzer" wrote in message
...

"George Dishman" schrieb

I have no idea what an aether based theory would say
about the event horizon.

Hi Ilja,

In my ether theory (see gr-qc/0205035),

I still have to learn GR first :-( You are too far
ahead of me at the moment and probably always will be.

which is a metric theory of gravity
with the GR Einstein equations in a natural limit, I have an additional
term
which becomes important near the horizon. It leads to stable "gravastar"
solutions with a size slightly greater than the horizon. (The "slightly"
depends
on a free parameter of the theory. If it is small enough, the frozen star
will
be de-facto indistinguishable from a GR BH from outside.)

About a year or two ago, I remember a study that looked
at a series of binar star systems in which material was
falling onto a compact companion. When they were ordered
by mass, flares from the first three became brighter as
the mass of the compact object increased but for the
remainder they reduced in brightness. The idea was that
the first three were probably neutron stars so as the
mass increased the energy released when matter hit the
surface also increased. The rest were supposedly black
holes and larger holes were duller because matter crossed
the event horizon before releasing its energy in a disk.

Would your model predict the same or ever increasing
brightness? It might give you a test approach.

best regards
George

Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:GVtRe.156125$E95.37789@fed1read01...
Dear Geroge Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox
wrote in message news:F_kQe.132957$E95.30758@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman,

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
...
I thas grown unwieldy again, so I am snipping down some...

Following suit as much as possible as it may be
some time until you can reply.

You said "We are discussing what happens inside the event
horizon so it can't be observed either way." I have been
clear
that I am interested in investigating what the inside of an
event
horizon looks like, and I "heard" your response in that
context.
As we have both said "our disagreement stands".

My comments however were specific to BH inside our
universe. I think there's less disagreement than
you imagine.

OK.

*IF* the CMBRM is simply the inside of the horizon. If
there
is an intervening plasma, then all my fuss is about getting
the
ability to have heavy elements, and coalescence, detectable
right up to the CMBRM. So if the light infall to the
horizon
does happen to be a blackbody, no matter which of the cases
I run the simulation for, then it is remotely possible the
CMBRM is just light from our container Universe.

Whether it is or not, you still need to explain how
taking the current matter density and "playing the
film backwards" can avoid a hot dense plasma some
few thousands of years after the bang.

OK. I'll cross that bridge when I get there. Likely
"something
funny" would have to happen, to have the spectrum (intensity
vs. wavelength) of a black body at T1, but the intensity of a
black body at T2.

No, I don't think you follow the point, "something
funny" would have to happen to allow coalesced
material (galaxies or whatever) to exist at
temperatures of the order of 10^5 K.

The Sun is such a structure, George. "Average ambient
temperature" only controls what the net heat transfer is... it
doesn't "reverse gravity". If everything is at 10^5 K, then
there is no particular "pluming effects" that would drive matter
towards a cooler place.

Having all that light present at time_zero, even randomly
directed, from all spatial points simultaneously, might
leave more questions than I can handle

I was noting you need to remove the plasma long after
that time so that the universe could be transparent.

Again, it is remotely possible (and falsifiable), that there was
no plasma, that what we call the CMBRM is simply infall from our
container Universe. It just depends on how the spectrum looks,
and when our hole began (I suspect).

I'll read it anyway (I've been out of circulation
for a few days) as both the others tell me there
is no physical change at the event horizon, just
at r=0. I'm still looking for something that
supports your view so that either I can see why
what was said misled you (if you are wrong) or
discover something new I didn't know about black
holes (if you are right).

I don't think I am talking about "physical change at the
event horizon", as far as the infall can tell us George.
As I have said, I fully expect the conservation laws to
apply *continuously*.

Then you don't get time averaging do you?

Yes, you do. There is no "physical integrator" there, no. But
just as r = r_S, t = t_0 is a coordinate that all things must
cross.

You've already agreed that an "infinite observer" is no longer
physicallly located in the same Universe as the infaller... once
he/she crosses the event horizon. There is no finite distance
between the infaller and any point (basically) outside the photon
sphere (remember the definition of the meter). This means that
the infaller is separated from the Universe-at-large by time
alone. r_outer becomes t_inner. We just don't agree on *where*,
I suppose.

Again, he shows the paths of test particles falling
through the event horizon and falling for some time
before reaching either "a -spacelike- curvature
singularity" or a "weak null Cauchy horizon
singularity", whatever that means. Either way there
is nothing unusual about the region inside the
horizon prior to hitting the singularities. In fact
the text also says "just as for the Schwarzschild
solution, but no wormhole or multiple 'external
universe' sheets." so you have a diagram with a line
in the middle separating two regions and "no external
universes" shown. Clearly all of that diagram refers
to our universe. This is perhaps why I couldn't
fathom why you cited it.

A universe is formed inside. Something argued against by
almost every "first responder" to this thread.

Inside what? Not the event horizon, he specifically
says there are no external universes shown.

Inside the black hole, George.

Well usually people mean the horizon when they
say "inside a black hole" as "inside r=0" doesn't
make much sense.

I have been clear that I mean inside the event horizon, r
r_S.

That's what I thought. That region is shown yet he states
no external universes are shown hence my reading of the
page as supporting my view. Whatever, we aren't going to
resolve that.

OK.

... For example the FAQ:

http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/BHfaq.html#q3

"What do you see as you are falling in? Surprisingly,
you don't necessarily see anything particularly
interesting. Images of faraway objects may be
distorted in strange ways, since the black hole's
gravity bends light, but that's about it. In
particular, nothing special happens at the moment
when you cross the horizon. Even after you've crossed
the horizon, you can still see things on the outside:
after all, the light from the things on the outside
can still reach you. No one on the outside can see
you, of course, since the light from you can't escape
past the horizon."

Note in particular

"Even after you've crossed the horizon, you can
still see things on the outside"

There is nothing in that suggesting time averaging of
total flux.

No comment. You disagree with the source (Andrew) regarding
what happens at the central singularity, and I disagree with
many
other things he presents.

I don't disagree with anything that is on Andrew's site
at all, I think you misread me. GR on it's own cannot be
definitive about what happens beyond r=0 or even at that
point.

QUOTE
At 10-9 Schwarzschild radii: 1 millimeter from the singularity.

The tidal force has become so strong that all images are
concentrated into a thin line about (what is left of) our waist.

As we approach the central singularity, the ride becomes very
bumpy - the ultimate roller coaster. Small perturbations in tidal
forces, caused by the presence of us and any other particles
around, become greatly amplified in the final approach. The
perturbations grow into violently oscillating tidal forces. Even
a single infalling photon is enough to induce such oscillations.

Besides shredding our already torn apart bits into subatomic
particles, the oscillating tides create photons and
particle-antiparticle pairs out of the vacuum, producing a fierce
environment

END QUOTE

I said you believed we reach a "sticky end" at the singularity,
then you claimed you did not, now you claim that you do (by
subscribing to "Andrew" in toto). I guess I'll wait till the
dice stop rolling, to see what they actually read.

I had hoped it was "friends that are working on
something interesting", but I consider pointing
out what I think is a simple slip-up to a friend
as something that can be done without getting
into entrenched positions. I'm really quite
dissapointed the conversation ended up going this
way and I hope you realise I am trying to retrieve
it.

Yes, George, I do. I tried to paint as broad a picture as I
could, allowing everyone to behave as they do, and make no one
wrong.
I brought up "annoy", I brought up the clown disguise. I also
chided others for being "Newtonian" and provincial, something
I
also have been from time to time.

That is certainly something that "annoyed" me. Nothing
I said was "Newtonian" and your I could have taken
accusation the wrong way, but I'm thick-skinned on these
things anyway (some would just say "thick").

Hardly thick, George. But I see so much that we standing on the
outside of a BH apply our "common sense" to "what must happen" to
things on the inside of the BH, when it is obvious that our
flatlander, Newtonian common sense is not applicable there.
*Except* as infallers ourselves... and then in only a small
volume suitably labelled "local".

OK, unless you have something more, I guess it is time for me
to "put up or shut up". I will be gone for about the next 5
days,
and if I can afford the gasoline to get back, I'll respond to
questions (or pointing out of further glaring errors on my
part)
next week.

I've tried to limit my response mainly to correcting
misapprehensions you appear to have about my own views.
I doubt there is much more to be said.

Then your efforts are good but wasted. I won't remember by the
time I finish (if ever) what your position was, nor do I fully
expect that your position at that time will be identically
represented by "old arguments". You are not a machine, and you
learn. Hopefully, I do too.

Pick a thread title, so that I can update those interested in the
status of the model as I assemble it. Since I am supposing that
the CMBRM is no longer a material structure ("like a neutron
star"), but the "mapping" of our container Universe's infall to
our "Big Bang"... or should I do this offline?

David A. Smith

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news09Te.168973$E95.89836@fed1read01...
Dear George Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" N: dlzc1 D:cox wrote in
message news:GVtRe.156125$E95.37789@fed1read01...
Dear Geroge Dishman:

"George Dishman" wrote in message
...
....
Whether it is or not, you still need to explain how
taking the current matter density and "playing the
film backwards" can avoid a hot dense plasma some
few thousands of years after the bang.

OK. I'll cross that bridge when I get there. Likely "something
funny" would have to happen, to have the spectrum (intensity
vs. wavelength) of a black body at T1, but the intensity of a
black body at T2.

No, I don't think you follow the point, "something
funny" would have to happen to allow coalesced
material (galaxies or whatever) to exist at
temperatures of the order of 10^5 K.

The Sun is such a structure, George.

There are no "coalesced structures" in the Sun, David.
"Playing the film backwards" gets you to a condition
where the whole universe should have been filled with
plasma similar to the radiative zone of the Sun.

"Average ambient temperature" only controls what the net heat transfer
is... it doesn't "reverse gravity". If everything is at 10^5 K, then
there is no particular "pluming effects" that would drive matter towards a
cooler place.

Right, but the temperature is high enough to dissociate
atoms and vaporise structures.

Having all that light present at time_zero, even randomly
directed, from all spatial points simultaneously, might
leave more questions than I can handle

I was noting you need to remove the plasma long after
that time so that the universe could be transparent.

Again, it is remotely possible (and falsifiable), that there was no
plasma,

I would like to know why you think that, it seems
impossible given the current observed density. I
understand you have an alternative waiting to
replace it but that's not what I am questioning.

that what we call the CMBRM is simply infall from our container Universe.
It just depends on how the spectrum looks, and when our hole began (I
suspect).

I'll read it anyway (I've been out of circulation
for a few days) as both the others tell me there
is no physical change at the event horizon, just
at r=0. I'm still looking for something that
supports your view so that either I can see why
what was said misled you (if you are wrong) or
discover something new I didn't know about black
holes (if you are right).

I don't think I am talking about "physical change at the
event horizon", as far as the infall can tell us George.
As I have said, I fully expect the conservation laws to
apply *continuously*.

Then you don't get time averaging do you?

Yes, you do. There is no "physical integrator" there, no.

Those seem to be contradictory.

But just as r = r_S, t = t_0 is a coordinate that all things must cross.

Those are just labels though, nothing more.

You've already agreed that an "infinite observer" is no longer physicallly
located in the same Universe as the infaller... once he/she crosses the
event horizon.

No I didn't, what I said is that the web Baez pages you
cited said there was no external universe shown even
though it showed both inside and outside, and that there
was a continuous path for the infaller so IMO what we
have is simply a part of the _same_ universe which cannot
be observed from the outside. It is no more a separate
universe than looking through a one-way mirror.

There is no finite distance between the infaller and any point (basically)
outside the photon sphere (remember the definition of the meter). This
means that the infaller is separated from the Universe-at-large by time
alone.

No true, the page you cited showed intervals of equal
proper time for the infaller. He reaches r=0 in finite
proper time. It is onlt the light going out that is
infinitely delayed so his demise is not seen even
though we know it has happened.

r_outer becomes t_inner. We just don't agree on *where*, I suppose.

No we agree where, that labelling change happens at
the event horizon. Where we disagree is that I say
it is purely a labelling convention with no physical
significance. Other coordinates schemes don't have
that problem.


No comment. You disagree with the source (Andrew) regarding
what happens at the central singularity, and I disagree with many other
things he presents.

I don't disagree with anything that is on Andrew's site
at all, I think you misread me. GR on it's own cannot be
definitive about what happens beyond r=0 or even at that
point.

QUOTE
At 10-9 Schwarzschild radii: 1 millimeter from the singularity.

The tidal force has become so strong that all images are concentrated into
a thin line about (what is left of) our waist.

As we approach the central singularity, the ride becomes very bumpy - the
ultimate roller coaster. Small perturbations in tidal forces, caused by
the presence of us and any other particles around, become greatly
amplified in the final approach. The perturbations grow into violently
oscillating tidal forces. Even a single infalling photon is enough to
induce such oscillations.

Besides shredding our already torn apart bits into subatomic particles,
the oscillating tides create photons and particle-antiparticle pairs out
of the vacuum, producing a fierce environment

END QUOTE

I said you believed we reach a "sticky end" at the singularity, then you
claimed you did not, now you claim that you do (by subscribing to "Andrew"
in toto). I guess I'll wait till the dice stop rolling, to see what they
actually read.

OK, maybe I need to be clearer. If the BH is uncharged
and non-rotating, I expect we reach a sticky end
slightly before r=0 before quantum effects become
significant. Perhaps we get crushed to the point where
beta capture makes us into pure neutrons and then
exclusion pressure is overcome so we become the size
of a single neutron. Beyond that I suspect QM would
prevent a true singularity but we don't know.

For a rotating and/or charged super-massive hole,
things might be different. There is a Cauchy horizon
which could be large so I guess something could pass
through it into who-knows-what. Whether we would be
shredded by frame dragging or whatever is another
matter entirely and well beyond my knowledge.

Basically I don't think there is anything wrong with
Andrew's stuff but it may not cover those situations
where 'other universes' are possible.

Personally I don't have a belief one way or the other
regarding other universes. The science doesn't tell us
therefore my view is "we don't know".

That is certainly something that "annoyed" me. Nothing
I said was "Newtonian" and your I could have taken
accusation the wrong way, but I'm thick-skinned on these
things anyway (some would just say "thick").

Hardly thick, George. But I see so much that we standing on the outside
of a BH apply our "common sense" to "what must happen" to things on the
inside of the BH, when it is obvious that our flatlander, Newtonian common
sense is not applicable there. *Except* as infallers ourselves... and then
in only a small volume suitably labelled "local".

I have no Newtonian perception of this at all though.
IMO, for an infalling observer in a very small lab
such that tidal effects were negligible, the experiments
he would perform in it would show standard Minkowski
spacetime. For example the MMX would give the usual
null result even as he crossed the event horizon or
within it and he was falling faster than c from the
point of view of the external observer. That cannot
really be described as Newtonian, can it?

OK, unless you have something more, I guess it is time for me
to "put up or shut up". I will be gone for about the next 5 days,
and if I can afford the gasoline to get back, I'll respond to
questions (or pointing out of further glaring errors on my part)
next week.

I've tried to limit my response mainly to correcting
misapprehensions you appear to have about my own views.
I doubt there is much more to be said.

Then your efforts are good but wasted. I won't remember by the time I
finish (if ever) what your position was, nor do I fully expect that your
position at that time will be identically represented by "old arguments".
You are not a machine, and you learn. Hopefully, I do too.

I try. I have been away on holiday and spent some
time reading D'Inverno but I'm still struggling to
learn the notation. I have also worked about half
way through the Oz pages but I can't do the homework
yet. How about you?

Pick a thread title, so that I can update those interested in the status
of the model as I assemble it. Since I am supposing that the CMBRM is no
longer a material structure ("like a neutron star"), but the "mapping" of
our container Universe's infall to our "Big Bang"... or should I do this
offline?

I think you need to address separate aspects. First
how can you avoid having a plasma. That's physics.

If you succeed in getting rid of that, what would
you see? If the BB surface was the horizon of a BH,
then Andrew's page is valid and you need to explain
your time averaging as opposed to discrete but
distorted images (or the whole external universe as
a single dot near where we entered).

Then you might think of what was external and how
it would integrate.

Bottom line, lots of highly specific threads instead of
one trying to be all-encompassing.

HTH
George