Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Isn’t saying “EH is an illusion” a non-relativistic generalisation?

Isn’t it an illusion only in frames that are not its own?

Yes and yes ... arg I have create a monster.

I cheated on the first one and took the simplification because if I used the word "reality" it gives the impression there is something special about the observer, some layman take another deviation you then have to deal with. You have come so far now you pick up the contradiction and yes the effects are not an illusion in it's own frame and lets expand on that for you.

The problem is you must consider the frame of reference if the change in frame would create a change larger than the accuracy you are attempting to measure ... that is the technical babble we use. So here on earth we can generally ignore frame of reference stuff as we don't measure to an accuracy that it would change the result, probably the only notable exception is the GPS system because of the distance to the satellite.

Now you can see the issue with the EH from Earth frame clearly, the time dilation is massive so the error will be massive. When you reframe the arguments to an observer right near the event horizon your accuracy is restored and you can more clearly see and measure the physics. In doing so you also understand why the distant observer sees what they do and the strange observations in their frame of reference.

The outside observer will actually see anything infalling apparently freeze at the EH so it looks correct to what his frame deduced was happening to time. However relativity makes you realize that is only true from that frame along way away from the EH.

What layman want to do is take that Earth frame make it global and tell you things about the EH ignoring the massive change of frame reference ... that is they run smack into relativity ignore it and/or violate it.

That is my issue with Dave and why I would have banned him. He said he believed in relativity yet notice he refused to change reference frame which due to accuracy, relativity would demand. The most basic parts of relativity tells you that at 99.9999999% dilation the frame is inaccurate and/or inappropriate.

The sorts of time dilation changes here on Earth are around 0.0000000000005 or 0.000000000000005% as a rough guide and for most general purposes we can ignore them.
ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hafele%E2%80%93Keating_experiment

So when you are doing calculations near the event horizon you need to be very careful with frame of reference because of the space curvature and it gets worse towards a singularity.

Originally Posted By: Bill S.
If it were an illusion in its own F of R, how would Hawking radiation work?

Now I am not going to be able to wave hands and do the usual classical physics fool on you here because I have created a monster smile

I will say I agree .... but not really and I will expand in a separate post as to why because I don't like lying and waving hands to you.
I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.