Hi Dave I really have trouble with your site postings don't seem to work so are you happy to work here.

You cannot reject answers you do not like out of hand. The Schwarzschild solution to Einstein's field equation is a solution for non-rotating mass throughout all space. You can no more claim is does not work inside a black hole than you can claim it does not work in your back yard. Oppenheimer/Sneider's paper (1938) claimed that you cannot extend the solution through the event horizon because of the nature of the singularity there. This leads one to conclude that the equivalence principle is valid in all space and in all coordinate systems with the exception of Schwarzschild coordinates. I find this so unlikely as to be ridiculous, but for the doubter, I provide a proof that the singularity in Schwarzschild coordinates will remain in any coordinates as the metric function is an invariant function. An infinity in one coordinate system is infinite in any coordinate system.

A long way to come up with an answer that I totally agree the only reference frame available at the event horizon is the speed of light which is expressly forbidden in GR. The actual problem is the same as trying to "view" the universe from a photons perspective. GR is a classical theory and that is it's classical limit.

I expressed this to Bill S in another chat a similar interface exists at the atomic level, you can't extend classical physics inside that boundary either so there is nothing unique about these sorts of interfaces.

The smooth over is to attempted to take classical spacetime across a time discontinuity which I think we both agree exists. Try taking your smoothed over version of space inside the atom and see how you go.

I believe the same woolly thinking invades your attempt to limit the scope of Birkhoff's theorem to a particular region of space. They are after all closely related.

They are and what I was trying to make you realize is there are interior and exterior solutions. Hence the equivalence between Birkhoff's theorem and gravity shell theorem. The fact you have to treat it differently tells you it's an interface just like the surface of earth or any matter is an interface.

I had real issues with one of your papers when you missed you had to change from the outside solution to the inside solution the moment a ball hit the horizon the same as you do with a ball falling to earth. The point of contact instigates the change the same as it does here on earth as it becomes part of the main mass.

Most importantly, and to my mind, conclusively, Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken, by my proposal. Does anyone else have a view?

You expressly break GR in many of your ideas.

Lets deal with one, GR inherits everything from SR and if GR doesn't cover it then you use SR, they are so to speak joined at the hip. SR states it expressly breaks Born Rigidity and Born Rigidity is a definition in the same way the speed of light is.

There was a nice technical discussion of it on one of the science forums covering all the angles

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/wh...ativity.723683/ It doesn't matter how you try and attack the question you arrive at the point GR/SR are incompatible with Born Rigid bodies.

So you claim "Einstein's general theory of gravitation is never broken" in your theory but it has a Born Rigid body in the middle of it defies that