Black holes may not exist!

[RJBeery]

At the risk of distracting from my previous post, I feel it is important to point out in additon that RJBerry's entire approach is flawed, not just the logical proof itself. The idea of demonstrating the reality (or non-reality) of an idea/phenomena through logic alone is Aristotle's failed method of discovering how the natural world works - it is the wrong way to approach the question, as Aristotle himself demonstrated:

Aristotle was said to have logically proven that a fly has four legs because that is what is necessary to satisfy bilateral symetry and provide stability. And he never bothered to look at a fly up close to see if he was right.

Though he added a lot to mankind's body of knowledge about how the natural world works, a great deal of what he added was wrong and his method so flawed that it stood in the way of advancement. Replacing Aristotle's method with the scientific method, which hinges on observation/experimentation is what brought us out of the Dark Ages.

Aristotle's approach was valid but his logic was flawed; 4 legs is the minimum necessary to satisfy bilateral symmetry and provide stability, right?

Saying my "entire approach is flawed" is simply absurd. I'm analyzing what the mathematical model of GR suggests. Black holes do not exist in anyone's causal past; this is an indisputable fact, and if you disagree with it then you don't understand the mathematics of GR. If you'd like to argue that black holes are not modeled by GR then you're free to do so, but you can no longer take the stance that you're speaking "for the mainstream".

I've already given an explanation for what resides at the center of galaxies (three times!) and its exterior effects would be very similar to what we traditionally call black holes, so pointing at dark splotches in the sky and choosing to ignore logical progressions (like a few other posters in this thread) just makes a person look like a fool.

RJ: see what Russ said too. Sorry mate. Point-singularities don't exist. Hawking radiation doesn't exist. But black holes do.

I have intentionally been avoiding the discussion of Hawking Radiation because I feel that GR suffices in disproving black holes. That being said micro black holes are theorized as being formed all the time and everywhere so you damn well better hope that Hawking Radiation takes care of them!

 

[origin]

I have intentionally been avoiding the discussion of Hawking Radiation because I feel that GR suffices in disproving black holes.

Disproves black holes?

Then what do you make of this???

[video=youtube;duoHtJpo4GY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duoHtJpo4GY[/video]

 

[paddoboy]

Hawking: Black Holes Do Exist.

Sometimes you just have to wonder whether Stephen Hawking is messing with us. The famously wheelchair-bound physicist earned his scientific reputation starting back in the 1970s with his theoretical ideas about black holes, those cosmic vacuum cleaners with gravity so powerful even light can’t escape, a mysterious singularity at their cores that approaches zero size and infinite density, and the power to pulverize anything that comes within reach. The whole idea might seem nutty, but astronomers have mounds of evidence by now, establishing that black holes really lurk at the cores of galaxies and eat stars for breakfast.

But now here comes Hawking with a new paper in which he declares boldly that “there are no black holes.” A reasonable person might conclude either that he thinks April Fool’s Day came early this year, or that Dr. Hawking has been spending a wee bit too much time enjoying the local ales.

The truth, however, is a lot less entertaining and a lot more obscure than that. To understand what Hawking actually meant, you have to wade into the treacherous waters of relativity and quantum theory—familiar territory for Stephen Hawking and his ilk, but a place where the rest of us risk drowning.



Suffice it to say that these two theories disagree on what happens at a black hole’s event horizon, the invisible threshold along the approach route to a black hole beyond which nothing can escape. Relatively says you actually wouldn’t notice that anything had changed if you crossed the line. It’s only if you tried to go backward that you’d find yourself swimming upstream against the black hole’s gravity—a hopeless task. (After a while, the black hole’s tidal forces would stretch you like a piece of chewing gum, and ultimately destroy you. You’d probably notice that.)

A couple of years ago, however, physicists at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Santa Barbara, California, used quantum mechanics to analyze the event horizon, and realized that quantum effects first described by Hawking himself back in the 1970s would make the event horizon anything but invisible: it would instead be a seething sheet of energy, dubbed “the firewall” by Kavli physicist Joseph Polchinski. “The event horizon would literally be a ring of fire that burns anyone falling through,” Polchinski told Nature in a 2012 interview.

So the event horizon is undetectable—or it’s a firewall—but it can’t be both. Hawking’s new paper is an attempt at a solution. It’s not that black holes don’t exist, but that instead of a sharply delineated event horizon, they have a mushier barrier he calls an “apparent horizon,” which for reasons no normal human should attempt to understand, is firm enough to hold stuff in, but not so firm as to generate that nasty ring of fire.


Eventually (Hawking doesn’t explain how), the apparent horizon could disappear, which could solve another black-hole-related paradox. Quantum theory says that information can be neither created nor removed from the universe. Yet if a one-way event horizon shrouds all black holes, then information—the chemistry and structure of matter falling in—is forever walled off from the rest of the cosmos. An apparent, impermanent horizon would remove that inconsistency. If you want to hear it from the horse’s mouth, as it were, you can watch this video.

The confusing part (or rather, one of many) is that Hawking himself admitted that there might not be an information paradox in the first place: in 2004, he conceded defeat in a bet with Caltech astrophysicist John Preskill, who had argued the no-paradox position.

Strangely enough, the story Time told back then ended with a couple of sentences that can be recycled precisely for this one. “The bottom line,” we said, “is that Hawking may or may not have solved a problem that may or may not have been a problem to begin with. You might well wonder why his announcement generated so much excitement. But when the subject is black holes and you’re the world’s most famous physicist—Hawking is not only a best-selling author but has also guest-starred on both Star Trek and The Simpsons—the usual rules don’t apply.”




http://science.time.com/2014/01/27/black-holes-hawking/

 

[paddoboy]

In layman's terms, BH's and subsequently EH's most certainly do exist.
We have irrefutable observational evidence of that fact.

 

[RJBeery]

In layman's terms, BH's and subsequently EH's most certainly do exist.
We have irrefutable observational evidence of that fact.

Irrefutable does not mean what you apparently think it means, but thank-you for letting your opinion be known...again

 

[paddoboy]

The following is a detailed scientific paper on BH's and there EH's

http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/docs/Doeleman_event_horizon_CGT_CFP.pdf



Summary :
Over the next decade, existing and planned mm/submm facilities can be combined into a high
sensitivity, high angular resolution "Event Horizon Telescope", capable of imaging a black hole.
This effort will include development and deployment of submm dual-polarization receivers,
highly stable frequency standards to enable VLBI at 1.3mmλ to 0.65mmλ, higher bandwidth
VLBI backends and recorders, and commissioning of new submm VLBI sites. Development of
phased array technology to combine all submm apertures on Mauna Kea into a single VLBI
station is already underway and will be adapted for use at ALMA and CARMA. We emphasize
that the path forward is clear, and recent successful observations have removed much of the risk
that would normally be associated with such an ambitious project. Details of the technical
efforts required to assemble this “Event Horizon Telescope” will be described elsewhere, but no
insurmountable challenges are foreseen.

 

[RJBeery]

Wait a minute, paddoboy, if their existence is irrefutable why spend this money to study them? From the first paragraph of your reference:

...They are now believed to reside at the heart of most galaxies...

The first page lists a couple dozen authors. Perhaps you should drop each of them a note informing them that their "beliefs" are irrelevant because existence of black holes and event horizons is irrefutable. Stephen Hawking might like to hear about your opinion as well.

 

[paddoboy]

Wait a minute, paddoboy, if their existence is irrefutable why spend this money to study them? From the first paragraph of your reference:

The first page lists a couple dozen authors. Perhaps you should drop each of them a note informing them that their "beliefs" are irrelevant because existence of black holes and event horizons is irrefutable. Stephen Hawking might like to hear about your opinion as well.

The first question is obvious...so obvious in fact, one would think you are trolling....But be that as it may....The answer would of course be to learn more about them...as we all know, that's what science is about.
We know DE appears to be real also....but we dont know what it actually is....Do we stop investigating/studying it?

I dare say the authors and Stephen all accept the existence of BH's, but again, as we all know, no scientific theory is set in concrete....is it?
And again for the umteenth time, can you describe the evidence for BH's via another model?

 

[RJBeery]

The first question is obvious...so obvious in fact, one would think you are trolling...

Of course I'm trolling, because your insistence to irrefutably know the unknowable is frankly offensive to me. And of course you contradict yourself a bit later with

I dare say the authors and Stephen all accept the existence of BH's, but again, as we all know, no scientific theory is set in concrete....is it?

Anyway...

And again for the umteenth time, can you describe the evidence for BH's via another model?

Yes, I already have, perhaps not umpteen times but at least four. It is my belief that GR predicts something closer to a frozen star interpretation of the black hole, where the event horizon exists at r=0, coinciding with what we currently label the physical singularity. Time is slowed asymptotically as mass approaches this point, and the event horizon never grows beyond this point. Remotely, this area would look substantially similar to the modern interpretation of a black hole.

I don't need to go in to it, but this interpretation resolves a number of puzzlers that physicists have been wrestling with for 80 years (information loss, white holes, firewalls, space/time inversion, remote massive velocity > c, etc)

 

[Russ_Watters]

Aristotle's approach was valid...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whoa. His approach was valid? Does this really need to turn into yet another discussion on why the scientific method exists and has been so successful while other approaches such has Aristotle's failed? Bottom line is that Aristotle's approach worked badly - it too often produced wrong results - and was replaced because of it. It is incredible for you to claim otherwise.

....but his logic was flawed: 4 legs is the minimum necessary to satisfy bilateral symetry and provide stability, right?

His logic was not flawed: it is illogical to believe that the Gods would provide superfluous legs. But again, you're missing the forest for the trees. Whether a particular line of logic works or not isn't the flaw here. The flaw is the lack of observational backup to prove the theory right or wrong in reality. In short, Aristotle's method is not self-correcting.

Similarly, for your logic, no matter what you do you cannot connect your logic to reality - prove that it is true for reality and not just an arbitrary set of premises - without observation.

Saying my "entire approach is flawed" is simply absurd. I'm analyzing what the mathematical model of GR suggests.

How do you know your interpretation of the mathematical model of GR matches reality if you refuse to test it against reality?

Black holes do not exist in anyone's causal past; this is an indisputable fact....

No, it is a logical conclusion you've drawn from your understanding of GR (not to mention it doesn't follow from your logic presented earlier and is itself also logically flawed). A fact is something that exists in the real world, not something that exists on a piece of paper.

...and if you disagree with it then you don't understand the mathematics of GR.

I don't, in this context. Do you? Does Hawking? Why is Hawking researching this if it is an indisputable fact? This paper that Hawking published and you cited in the OP corrects an error (at least he thinks so) in interpreting GR while nevertheless pointing out that other errors are still known to exist. If you've got it all figured out, by all means submit your papers and collect your Nobel prize!

The only indisputable fact here is that Hawking is researching black holes because the logic that explains them is known to be flawed. You are using the results of known flawed logic to try to prove something that is observed to exist does not exist. This is quite a mess you've made!

I've already given an explanation for what resides at the center of galaxies (three times!) and its exterior effects would be very similar to what we traditionally call black holes.

That's nice. Where have you gotten your theory published? Are there any mainstream, modern cosmologists who subscribe to your theory?

Wait a minute, paddoboy, if their existence is irrefutable why spend this money to study them?

Oh, c'mon, how are we supposed to believe you aren't trolling when you say things like that? There are a host of theories that are rock-solid that are still researched. I can't believe that you would not understand why.

The first page lists a couple dozen authors. Perhaps you should drop each of them a note informing them that their "beliefs" are irrelevant because the existence of black holes and event horizons is irrefutable.

Just to be clear: are you claiming that your opinion that black holes do not exist matches the current mainstream view of cosmologists?

Unfortunately, my concern was validated and you didn't respond to my previous post, so I'll try to make it simple:
1. Your logic "proves" (logically, but not in reality) that an object cannot penetrate an event horizon or be observed to exist behind it. But it doesn't address the existence of the black hole itself and in fact presupposes its existence.
2. The star that turns into a black hole exists in your past. You watch it collapse. At some point in time (on your watch, by your observation), the star stops emitting light and turns dark. It's certainly ceased to be a normal star: has it also ceased to exist altogether?
3. I feel like this is going to go back to an argument over names or, rather, competing theories. Again: your "theory" is not published and not accepted by the mainstream of physics. These objects/phenomena clearly exist either way.
3a. If that's the case, it is pretty disingenuous of you to portray this as a debate about whether these objects exist or don't, when clearly you agree that they do, you just have a different name for them and different predictions about their structure.

 

[RJBeery]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whoa. His approach was valid? Does this really need to turn into yet another discussion on why the scientific method exists and has been so successful while other approaches such has Aristotle's failed? Bottom line is that Aristotle's approach worked badly - it too often produced wrong results - and was replaced because of it. It is incredible for you to claim otherwise.

His logic was not flawed: it is illogical to believe that the Gods would provide superfluous legs. But again, you're missing the forest for the trees. Whether a particular line of logic works or not isn't the flaw here. The flaw is the lack of observational backup to prove the theory right or wrong in reality. In short, Aristotle's method is not self-correcting.

Similarly, for your logic, no matter what you do you cannot connect your logic to reality - prove that it is true for reality and not just an arbitrary set of premises - without observation.

How do you know your interpretation of the mathematical model of GR matches reality if you refuse to test it against reality?

No, it is a logical conclusion you've drawn from your understanding of GR (not to mention it doesn't follow from your logic presented earlier and is itself also logically flawed). A fact is something that exists in the real world, not something that exists on a piece of paper.

I don't, in this context. Do you? Does Hawking? Why is Hawking researching this if it is an indisputable fact? This paper that Hawking published and you cited in the OP corrects an error (at least he thinks so) in interpreting GR while nevertheless pointing out that other errors are still known to exist. If you've got it all figured out, by all means submit your papers and collect your Nobel prize!

The only indisputable fact here is that Hawking is researching black holes because the logic that explains them is known to be flawed. You are using the results of known flawed logic to try to prove something that is observed to exist does not exist. This is quite a mess you've made!

That's nice. Where have you gotten your theory published? Are there any mainstream, modern cosmologists who subscribe to your theory?

Oh, c'mon, how are we supposed to believe you aren't trolling when you say things like that? There are a host of theories that are rock-solid that are still researched. I can't believe that you would not understand why.

Just to be clear: are you claiming that your opinion that black holes do not exist matches the current mainstream view of cosmologists?

Unfortunately, my concern was validated and you didn't respond to my previous post, so I'll try to make it simple:
1. Your logic "proves" (logically, but not in reality) that an object cannot penetrate an event horizon or be observed to exist behind it. But it doesn't address the existence of the black hole itself and in fact presupposes its existence.
2. The star that turns into a black hole exists in your past. You watch it collapse. At some point in time (on your watch, by your observation), the star stops emitting light and turns dark. It's certainly ceased to be a normal star: has it also ceased to exist altogether?
3. I feel like this is going to go back to an argument over names or, rather, competing theories. Again: your "theory" is not published and not accepted by the mainstream of physics. These objects/phenomena clearly exist either way.
3a. If that's the case, it is pretty disingenuous of you to portray this as a debate about whether these objects exist or don't, when clearly you agree that they do, you just have a different name for them and different predictions about their structure.

Christ, I don't have the inclination nor the energy to read all of this. Sorry bro

 

[paddoboy]

It is my belief that GR predicts something closer to a frozen star interpretation of the black hole, where the event horizon exists at r=0, coinciding with what we currently label the physical singularity. Time is slowed asymptotically as mass approaches this point, and the event horizon never grows beyond this point. Remotely, this area would look substantially similar to the modern interpretation of a black hole.

I don't need to go in to it, but this interpretation resolves a number of puzzlers that physicists have been wrestling with for 80 years (information loss, white holes, firewalls, space/time inversion, remote massive velocity > c, etc)

Yep, that's your belief. And the mainstream opinion aligns with the GR interpretation...and no I don't believe you have any evidence at all to support your position....If you did, then that would be the mainstream position.

I will modifiy my statement somewhat to help alleviate your angst...I don't want you blowing a poofer valve!
TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, BH's and subsequently their EH's do exist.
And observational evidence, plus the high degree of accuracy that has been determined using GR, support their existence.

That position will stand until you get your position peer reviewed and then accepted for what you say.
I won't hold my breath though.

 

[RJBeery]

Yep, that's your belief. And the mainstream opinion aligns with the GR interpretation...and no I don't believe you have any evidence at all to support your position....If you did, then that would be the mainstream position.

I will modifiy my statement somewhat to help alleviate your angst...I don't want you blowing a poofer valve!
TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, BH's and subsequently their EH's do exist.
And observational evidence, plus the high degree of accuracy that has been determined using GR, support their existence.

That position will stand until you get your position peer reviewed and then accepted for what you say.
I won't hold my breath though.

Awesome, we have firmly established each others' perspectives and agreed to disagree. You, brucep, Russ_Watters and a couple of others here are offering me no new information, though, and my arguments are not laid out for your sake. I'm interested in interaction with someone like przyk who is generally capable of following my reasoning and I would think capable of pointing out any flaws. If you just want to continue typing the same thing over and over, or are looking for an online disagreement because you're bored, I would ask that you do it in another thread. Thanks

 

[Undefined]

Undefined: thanks for your contribution. I agree that the clock/local observer "stops timing". But as for the motion only being inward.... sucks teeth. There's a problem. Have you ever heard of Friedwardt Winterberg's firewall? See http://www.znaturforsch.com/aa/v56a/56a0889.pdf

When I say 'inwards', I mean a variety of trajectories (some transiently circular, some of more/less degrees of spiraling pathways) which eventually penetrate through the EH ZONE. What exists there, whether 'firewall' in nature/effect, or some other energy-space TRANSITION states/dynamics etc is still up for discussion depending on one's hypothesis/theory. For example, in my ToE 'from scratch', the energy-space there is a ZONE having 'depth' and not just a 'sharp surface' dynamics/transition. Immediately below that EH ZONE, the inside of the BH feature/content itself is a MORE FUNDAMENTAL energy-space STATE/PHASE involving degenerate energy-space conditions/dynamics and constituents more akin to the underlying energy-space which constitutes the external QUANTUM vacuum states/phases of which all features are basically made and whose localized characteristics/interactions depend on the degrees of freedom for PHASE SEPARATIONS into the various forms we observe outside. There is no logical or physical requirement for a 'CENTRAL SINGULARITY' (ie, the WHOLE INTERIOR constitutes a SINGULARITY PHASE CONDITION in the sense that all that content is spread out within the WHOLE INTERIOR phase-energy-space BELOW the INNER SURFACE of the EH ZONE 'infalling/transition layer' -----call that ZONE a 'firewall' or whatever?-----and NOT concentrated at an infinite density 'central point singularity state' as conventionally hypothesized).

Inside the EH ZONE dynamics/transition, then, all infalling phase features are degenerated into more fundamental states. That is briefly what my ToE tells me, without any ad hoc 'fixes' necessary anywhere along the logic/reality flow initial 'from scratch' starting reality postulate which gives gravity and all the other phenomena a consistent mechanism which chaos theory/dynamics evolve into the emergent phenomena observed, including that outside AND inside the BH feature's EH ZONE.

That's as briefly as I can put it here and now, Farsight, paddoboy, et al. I am still too busy to engage in long exchanges. And I don't want to pre-empt the complete and consistent ToE contents/conclusions to be published soon! Cheers all.

 

[paddoboy]

. I'm interested in interaction with someone like przyk who is generally capable of following my reasoning and I would think capable of pointing out any flaws.

Or to to put that another way, I'm only interested in opinions that align with my own.

.
If you just want to continue typing the same thing over and over, or are looking for an online disagreement because you're bored, I would ask that you do it in another thread. Thanks

I'm typing the mainstream position, and obviously it's the mainstream position because that is what is observed and most likely.
And I certainly will not ignore stupid claims that BH's or their EH's do not exist in the present.
Others more attuned to the mathematics have illustrated that.

 

[paddoboy]

Seems we have at least three positions as put in this thread.....

[1] BH's and EH's exist in the past present and future and whether one can cross the EH depends on one's FoR.... eg: From a local frame of someone with a clock, he crosses the EH with everything appearing as normal and reaches the Singularity in a finite amount of time...[Ignoring tidal gravity effects]
From an outside FoR, that same someone and the clock, approaching the BH, will never quite reach the EH, just gradually redshifted further and further along the spectrum to infinity. This is the mainstream position and which I find the most valid.

[2] A position held by undefined and Farsight is that time is seen to stop at the EH, while the clock and anyone with it continues on as normal. [Differing from the mainstream position which has no one seeing time as stopped because no FoR sees anything ever quite reach the EH].
Also they seem to think there is no Singularity.

[3] And then we have RJBeery's position where no BH or EH exists in the present.


I'm sticking with the mainstream, and wait with great anticipation for those with alternative models to have them peer reviewed.

 

[paddoboy]

There is no logical or physical requirement for a 'CENTRAL SINGULARITY' (ie, the WHOLE INTERIOR constitutes a SINGULARITY PHASE CONDITION in the sense that all that content is spread out within the WHOLE INTERIOR phase-energy-space BELOW the INNER SURFACE of the EH ZONE 'infalling/transition layer' -----call that ZONE a 'firewall' or whatever?-----and NOT concentrated at an infinite density 'central point singularity state' as conventionally hypothesized).

? If the contents were spread through the interior, and there was no Singularity, then it seems to me to be a Mitchell type Dark Star and not a GR BH..........

That's as briefly as I can put it here and now, Farsight, paddoboy, et al. I am still too busy to engage in long exchanges. And I don't want to pre-empt the complete and consistent ToE contents/conclusions to be published soon! Cheers all.

You have mentioned a few times, "My TOE,"or "for example in my TOE" ....
Are you about to publish a new model??
At least someone is following the scientific method and getting it peer reviewed!
Best of luck with it. [You'll need it ]

 

[Beaconator]

When I say 'inwards', I mean a variety of trajectories (some transiently circular, some of more/less degrees of spiraling pathways) which eventually penetrate through the EH ZONE. What exists there, whether 'firewall' in nature/effect, or some other energy-space TRANSITION states/dynamics etc is still up for discussion depending on one's hypothesis/theory. For example, in my ToE 'from scratch', the energy-space there is a ZONE having 'depth' and not just a 'sharp surface' dynamics/transition. Immediately below that EH ZONE, the inside of the BH feature/content itself is a MORE FUNDAMENTAL energy-space STATE/PHASE involving degenerate energy-space conditions/dynamics and constituents more akin to the underlying energy-space which constitutes the external QUANTUM vacuum states/phases of which all features are basically made and whose localized characteristics/interactions depend on the degrees of freedom for PHASE SEPARATIONS into the various forms we observe outside. There is no logical or physical requirement for a 'CENTRAL SINGULARITY' (ie, the WHOLE INTERIOR constitutes a SINGULARITY PHASE CONDITION in the sense that all that content is spread out within the WHOLE INTERIOR phase-energy-space BELOW the INNER SURFACE of the EH ZONE 'infalling/transition layer' -----call that ZONE a 'firewall' or whatever?-----and NOT concentrated at an infinite density 'central point singularity state' as conventionally hypothesized).

Inside the EH ZONE dynamics/transition, then, all infalling phase features are degenerated into more fundamental states. That is briefly what my ToE tells me, without any ad hoc 'fixes' necessary anywhere along the logic/reality flow initial 'from scratch' starting reality postulate which gives gravity and all the other phenomena a consistent mechanism which chaos theory/dynamics evolve into the emergent phenomena observed, including that outside AND inside the BH feature's EH ZONE.

That's as briefly as I can put it here and now, Farsight, paddoboy, et al. I am still too busy to engage in long exchanges. And I don't want to pre-empt the complete and consistent ToE contents/conclusions to be published soon! Cheers all.

How does the more fundamental zone transition between the EH zone and the eternal quantum fluctuations?

Answer that and ill believe you.

 

[paddoboy]

The following is a detailed scientific paper on BH's and there EH's

http://www.eventhorizontelescope.org/docs/Doeleman_event_horizon_CGT_CFP.pdf



That paper and the following reputable links support the view I'm holding onto.....


http://hubblesite.org/explore_astron..._mod3_q15.html

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


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...s/fall_in.html



http://science.time.com/2014/01/27/black-holes-hawking/

 

[Russ_Watters]

Awesome, we have firmly established each others' perspectives and agreed to disagree. You, brucep, Russ_Watters and a couple of others here are offering me no new information, though, and my arguments are not laid out for your sake. I'm interested in interaction with someone like przyk who is generally capable of following my reasoning and I would think capable of pointing out any flaws.

So basically, anyone who disagrees with your position must be incapable of understanding it. That's pretty solidly crackpot thinking. Tell me this though: do you believe your position matches the scientific mainstream position?

It is my belief that GR predicts something closer to a frozen star interpretation of the black hole...

Please link the mainstream scientific papers that discuss this idea.