You need to post a lot more than some hand waving and ask us consider ... the idea is 100 years old and has been considered

You are right about one thing it is not just me against you, it is anybody who has ever passed first year SR/GR coarse that is against you. There is exactly zero possibility it exists as you can falsify it rather easily.

Can you try to following Lubos's example he put it in nice mathematical terms of your Schwarzschild coordinates in mathematics you love, so perhaps the penny will drop.

http://motls.blogspot.com.au/2015/09/richard-muller-vs-basics-of-general.html#moreYes it makes the geometry "static" but it is easy to show that the apparent "static" is blatantly wrong. Lubos does it two different ways but there are in fact hundreds of way to do it as it really trivial to show time is still actually running at the horizon in different reference frames.

Relativity says all frames are equal and time can appear different in other frames and that includes the illusion of stopping. You also can't take time from one reference frame and impose it on other frames ... that is a NO NO and about the worst breach of relativity possible.

What do you want us to simply ignore the facts?

There is nothing new or novel about your idea, it was known 100 years ago and was an arguement against relativity. Anyone who has done a relativity coarse knows the naive interpretation of Schwarzschild coordinates and it's clear falsification. As Lubos said, it is a bit of a joke with scientists when people take such naive understanding and wanting to put a solid in the black hole interior.

You may investigate it all you like, but no scientist will bother wasting further time on you if you just refuse to learn. The fact is time will cross the event horizon and GR/QM are still holding and so no born rigid bodies can exist there because the argument follows the same maths as outside the black hole. The only point at which GR/QM will break down is much closer into the singularity if such a thing exists and that is the scientifically accepted situation. I am really surprised a mathematician struggles so much with relativity.

You have clearly been told the same answer by a number of us. About all I can see you doing from here Dave is diminishing whatever academic reputation you had by being extremely academically lazy and willfully stubborn in ignoring evidence.

The maths argument against born rigid bodies doesn't change either side of the Event horizon as time hasn't stopped and the forces are fractions of a neutron star at the EH (Your Schwarzschild solution is 1/4M ... it's tiny as M is large ... Neutron star is 7x10E12 ... weird isn't it and it requires understanding). The stranger part for you to understand the bigger the black hole the less surface gravity at the event horizon ... it's all backwards! See you need to understand what surface gravity is and how it's defined, which is why the result seems really strange.

Hint here is you need to turn things to a tidal force between two points at a set distance ... and it still ends up strange

I am done, I can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped. You haven't dealt with a single objection and you can say consider the possibility. Well I considered the possibility and given I can falsify it .... where exactly would I go from there.

Until you look at evidence and frames that time does not stop at the event horizon, no-one can help you. Time is not the same in every reference frame (there are actually tests of it), we hope you did at least get that bit from your poor understanding of relativity .. universal absolute time does not exist in relativity