Black holes

[DeiRenDopa]

News at 10

Like Brian-M a bit earlier, I had an epiphany!

By thinking for myself (as oracle Farsight commands) and doing my own research (ditto), I have discovered the truly revolutionary insight at the heart of FGR: the ansible^WP!

I have a truly marvelous demonstration of this proposition which, unfortunately, this margin post is too small to contain (more News at 10).

Remember those exploding trains?

In this post I showed that, pace Farsight, in the real world, both trains explode (if they can't defuse the bomb), or neither train explodes (if the bomb on a train is defused at the same time the train hits the buffer).

But that assumes the trains signal each other with radios.

However, if they have ansibles, then what Farsight says¹ is right!

Therefore, ansibles are possible!!

And the existence of ansibles explains Farsight's racehorse analogy too ("Just think of [the light beams] as racehorses. They aren't going at the same speed.")²: when a horse crosses the finish line, the ansible there sends a message "my horse crossed the line!". Compare the two ansible signals, and yes, one horse definitely crosses the line before the other.

But what about the "smoke-filled chamber", the "misted chamber" scenario, a.k.a. the misty chamber scenario?

Stay tuned; more News at 11.

¹ "The best way to appreciate this is to replace the light beams with trains. The first one to hit the buffers detonates a bomb on the other one. It's always the lower train that blows up. Your motion and your distance affects the way you see things, but you don't see the upper train blow up."
² For example:

... you can look at parallel-mirror light clocks and see this going on:

|--------------------|
|--------------------|

Just think of them as racehorses. They aren't going at the same speed.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

News at 11

In my analysis of the misty chamber experiments, I struggled to find a place to put the "gedanken high-speed camera", so that we "can see [that] one light beam [is] moving faster than the other". The solution I found is rather awkward (it involves doing unnatural things to the gedanken film, for example). It also doesn't need two gedanken high-speed cameras, as Farsight requires in his post B version of this scenario.

But worse is that Farsight calls all of this "simple"¹. I'm sure he'd say my analyses are anything but simple (if only he could read them).

Then I realized that the trains, and racecourses, have ansibles.

And that gave me the insight to realize that I'd missed a crucial characteristic of the dust, and of the gedanken high-speed cameras.

You see, ansibles work by detecting a special kind of light, which I'll call 'farlight', in honor of the oracle Farsight ('Farsight's light', get it?). The magical dust in the misty chambers emits farlight when struck by light beams, and the gedanken cameras detect farlight. So it doesn't much matter where the farlight-detecting gedanken cameras are located; the film from any one will contain images much like the Farsight signature diagrams².

The revolutionary difference between FGR and (Einstein's) GR is farlight.

¹ More than once; here is just one example (bold added):

Wow guys, I've just read through to the end of the thread and frankly I'm amazed. You're showing the most awful groupthink here. You still can't see the obvious. Let's try it another way. Let's say we've got two trains on parallel tracks. They start off at the same time, and one reaches the end before the other. Like this:

|-----------------|
|-----------------|

Which train is going faster? Easy. The top one.

Now repeat this with two light beams in parallel-mirror clocks:

|-----------------|
|-----------------|

Which one's going faster?

It's that simple, it really is.

² This also explains why Farsight never bothered to explain how the clocks were synchronized; using farlight it's a piece of cake, much like how you synchronize the trains, or racehorses, using ordinary light.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I've spoken at great length to posters here about Einstein's varying speed of light, which isn't my idea. However your physics knowledge is scant, you have no sincerity, and your sophistry is rubbish. I gave you plenty of my time, and it turned out that you were being deliberately dishonest, and a deliberate timewaster. Hence I now ignore you. Now go on, sling your hook kid, the big boys are talking physics.

What do you think?

I think Farsight's legendary modesty prevents him from taking full credit for the truly incredible simplification he has achieved with his Farsight Theory of General Relativity (FGR).

To appreciate the full extent of Farsight's simplifications, consider Einstein's 1916 paper on The Foundations of the General Theory of Relativity, which is generally regarded as the most important paper Einstein ever wrote on that subject.

Einstein's preface says the absolute differential calculus (aka differential geometry) and non-Euclidean manifolds are "necessary for general relativity". FGR does away with all that.

Einstein refers to research by Gauss, Riemann, Christoffel, Ricci, and Levi-Civita. FGR doesn't have anything to do with those guys.

Einstein goes on and on about those coordinate transformations that make standard GR so darn complicated:

...all imaginable systems of co-ordinates...with respect to any substitutions whatever...any chosen system of reference...any system of co-ordinates...any substitution of the co-ordinates...independent of the choice of co-ordinates...any other system of co-ordinates...any choice of the system of co-ordinates...

FGR forbids coordinate transformations.

Einstein talks about covariant this and covariant that, with some contravariant things thrown in for variety. That's all about coordinate transformations, so FGR tosses it.

That gets rid of everything in Einstein's sections 5, 6, and 7. Everything in Einstein's sections 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 depends on sections 5, 6, and 7, so FGR does away with all the math that has made Einstein's general theory of relativity so notoriously difficult to understand.

That brings us to Farsight's greatest triumph.

All of standard GR's falsifiable predictions depend on purely theoretical assumptions that Farsight was able to avoid in FGR.

Although standard GR has stood up to experiment quite well so far, there may come a day when some experiment contradicts standard GR. When that happens, standard GR will be falsified...but FGR will survive!

Some small-minded folk may complain that FGR is unfalsifiable, but that's unfair. FGR does make one falsifiable assumption: that what Farsight says is true.

That assumption can't be controversial, else Farsight would have provided evidence for it. I mention it only to defend FGR against those who would otherwise accuse FGR of being unfalsifiable.

As it happens, sol invictus and DeiRenDopa have already succeeded in identifying falsifiable predictions made by FGR:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8150884&postcount=817
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8151313&postcount=825

I am not a physicist. I don't know whether those predictions of FGR have yet been confirmed by experiment.

I do know we should not let Farsight's humility keep us from acknowledging the unprecedented simplicity of Farsight general relativity.

As I showed in my last three posts, Farsight's genius extends far beyond the mere simplification of "MTW" (and Einstein's) GR, though that is indeed a marvelous feat (as you have so succinctly outlined).

You see, Farsight has discovered a physical phenomenon that has hithertofore eluded every physicist - theoretical or experimental - in the world, for the past century or so.

And his modesty has prevented him from even naming this phenomenon, leaving him no course but to describe it obliquely, and call others' attention to it by saying that it's "obvious", and "It's that simple, it really is."

I, DeiRenDopa, however have no reason not to recognize his genius by calling the key part of his discovery "farlight", in honor of his farsight.

His discovery is all the more profound for it being, in many respects, a marrying of the genius of Newton with the genius of Einstein; farlight reflects the absolute time and space of Newton and Galileo, while light reflects the relative nature of time and space of Einstein.

How did Farsight work this out? Well, as you have said, he's an oracle, and this post of his points to his omniscience, his ability to understand the true nature of the universe without the need to do any experiments, nor develop any mathematics-based models:

"The Earth sits at the origin and the Sun orbits it in the x-y plane" is a physical-law-obeying geodesic in an Earth-centered Cartesian coordinate system".

Which delivers the wrong understanding of what actually happens in this real universe. It's similar for black holes.

YMMV, of course ...

 

[Brian-M]

Remember those exploding trains?

In this post I showed that, pace Farsight, in the real world, both trains explode (if they can't defuse the bomb), or neither train explodes (if the bomb on a train is defused at the same time the train hits the buffer).

But that assumes the trains signal each other with radios.

However, if they have ansibles, then what Farsight says¹ is right!

Therefore, ansibles are possible!!

The alternative solution is that the tracks are close enough and the difference in velocity great enough that the radio signal from the first train to hit the the buffer always reaches the second train before it also hits the buffer, which is what I assume Farsight is imagining.

Of course, if those trains are being used to represent packets of light with different velocities due to differing gravitational potential on their paths, then what (I've assumed) Farsight imagines would only hold true for either an incredibly steep gravitational gradient, such as in close vicinity to a black-hole, or for an incredibly long distance, such as bouncing the light off mirrors so that it repeatedly loops around the earth.

ETA: I know you already knew this, I'm just pointing out that in certain exotic circumstances Farsight's point would be valid.

In my analysis of the misty chamber experiments, I struggled to find a place to put the "gedanken high-speed camera", so that we "can see [that] one light beam [is] moving faster than the other". The solution I found is rather awkward (it involves doing unnatural things to the gedanken film, for example).

What's wrong with placing the camera at a point where all four mirrors are equidistant to the camera?

You see, ansibles work by detecting a special kind of light, which I'll call 'farlight', in honor of the oracle Farsight ('Farsight's light', get it?).

Call me old-fashioned, but I think I'll stick with referring to these particles as tachyons.

ETA: Even if the word does bring to mind Dr. Tachyon from the Wild Cards books.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The alternative solution is that the tracks are close enough and the difference in velocity great enough that the radio signal from the first train to hit the the buffer always reaches the second train before it also hits the buffer, which is what I assume Farsight is imagining.

Of course, if those trains are being used to represent packets of light with different velocities due to differing gravitational potential on their paths, then what (I've assumed) Farsight imagines would only hold true for either an incredibly steep gravitational gradient, such as in close vicinity to a black-hole, or for an incredibly long distance, such as bouncing the light off mirrors so that it repeatedly loops around the earth.

ETA: I know you already knew this, I'm just pointing out that in certain exotic circumstances Farsight's point would be valid.

Farsight often writes in a way that is confusing, inconsistent, and is sometimes self-contradictory.

As W.D.Clinger noted, he rarely backs up his "points" with sufficient detail that you can check his logic or his math*; in short, he acts like an oracle. When pressed about this, he tends to scream and yell, rather than roll up his sleeves and explain his points.

If he'd like to clarify his "exploding trains" analogy, in light of my analysis, let's see him do just that.

What's wrong with placing the camera at a point where all four mirrors are equidistant to the camera?

Possibly nothing, possibly everything.

The point is that Farsight didn't say where to place the camera.

Suppose, one day, that he does. I would then, likely, ask him questions about this. Such as:

-> "how do you determine the point where 'all four mirrors are equidistant to the camera'?"

-> "how do you show that the light-travel times (from dust to camera) are unbiased (i.e. that whatever Shapiro delays there are, they affect paths from the upper and lower clocks equally)?"

Call me old-fashioned, but I think I'll stick with referring to these particles as tachyons.

ETA: Even if the word does bring to mind Dr. Tachyon from the Wild Cards books.

Nah, farlight is better.

Tachyons are wimps, they do not travel the length and breadth of the universe instantaneously, so are still subject to MTW (and Einstein's) GR; farlight returns physics to its golden age, in which time and space were absolute ...

* what little there is; he doesn't go as far as "I-don't-bark-math" MM, but the resemblance is uncanny

 

[Farsight]

I'm sure that Farsight will claim that light is virtually motionless at that point, so we'd never actually see the gamma-rays coming out of the black-holes.

I wouldn't. I'd claim that we'd see a gamma ray burst when an object annihilates at a shockfront before it gets to the event horizon. Some of the gamma rays would go into the black hole, but not all.

Well, he did actually say we'd see a flash, so he either mis-spoke, was speaking metaphorically, or is contradicting himself again.

Yes, I said we'd see a flash. Have a read up on GRBs and take a look at this physicsworld article which says this:

"Scientists were already aware that the huge black hole at the centre of our galaxy does not consume large amounts of matter, but it could be an even pickier eater than previously thought. That is according to new research done in the US that suggests that the black hole – called Sagittarius A* – has a tendency to blow away 99.99% of the matter available for its consumption".

I assume your analogy is not supposed to be perfect given the astrophysical evidence for a lack of a solid surface for black holes.

It's meant to be as perfect as the frozen star. It's not the kind of surface you can walk around on.

 

[Farsight]

How do you know they're just sitting there, and that you're not just moving along at a constant distance behind them?

For God's sake Brian. They're just two pairs of mirrors in front of us with light going back and forth. Stop clutching at straws with this.

That's what I'm talking about with the rotating space station scenario, you'd see exactly the same thing. Just because you see the two beams of light moving at different speeds (and you've put a lot of emphasis on the seeing part in earlier threads) doesn't actually mean they are moving at different speeds.

When one racehorse beats another, it isn't because they're on a rotating space station, and it isn't because you're moving at some constant distance behind them. It's because one's going faster than the other. It's that simple.

I think you've misunderstood me here. I was talking about the space station scenario, from the point of view of someone not moving with the space-station.

Forget your space station. It's absolutely irrelevant.

The point of the rotating space-station in post 676 was to point out that acceleration is acceleration, regardless of whether it comes from being in a gravitational field, a spaceship, or rotating ring, and that there's no reason to assume that the mechanism causing time dilation differs in any of these cases.

The thing you call time dilation is just things moving slower

That doing it on a rotating ring is exactly the same thing as doing it in a gravitational field.

No it isn't. One's a rotating ring, one's a gravitational field.

The point of the rotating space-station in posts 805, 807 and 837 was to produce an easily understandable situation where you see the exact same phenomenon where the light in two light clocks at different elevations appears to be traveling at different velocities exactly as it as appears to do in a gravitational field, to demonstrate that the fact that you see the light traveling at different speeds doesn't necessarily mean the light actually is traveling at different speeds, which would then have been the basis for making a comparison to the same observed phenomenon in gravity.

Things sometimes look slower because you're moving. And sometimes things are slower.

 

[Farsight]

How about FIROOPOE? ("Farsight's Idiosyncratic Reading Of One Paper Of Einstein's") Or FOMPOWHIGRI? ("Farsight's Odd Mental Picture Of What He Thinks GR Is")...

How about ben can't address the evidence or face up to what Einstein said, so he tries ad-hominem abuse instead. Gorn, geddoutofit, you've got nothing.

 

[Farsight]

Exactly right. (ben, I often read your posts with admiration and envy of your ability to cut down quacks, but you've outdone yourself with that one.)

I'm the one cutting down quacks here sol. And you won't be peddling that fatuous waterfall again in a hurry, will you?

 

[edd]

Yes, I said we'd see a flash. Have a read up on GRBs and take a look at this physicsworld article which says this:

"Scientists were already aware that the huge black hole at the centre of our galaxy does not consume large amounts of matter, but it could be an even pickier eater than previously thought. That is according to new research done in the US that suggests that the black hole – called Sagittarius A* – has a tendency to blow away 99.99% of the matter available for its consumption".

I don't see the relevance of that to your claim that matter turns into gamma rays as it approaches the event horizon.

 

[Farsight]

...I argued something like this: As the mass of the star approaches the Schwarzschild radius (that is, as the Schwarzschild radius of the center becomes greater than that of the center of the star's mass - when the first atoms collapse, if you will) it could not grow any more from our point of view. Because, as the rest of the star approaches it, time slows down from our point of view, and as such it never passes the event horizon. As such, we could never observe a collapsed star with a Schwarzschild radius any more than some infinitesimal amount, because the central singularity could obviously not grow in size.

Now, of course, there's something seriously wrong with the above argumentation.

Yes, you're presuming there's a central singularity, and you aren't allowing for accretion. Remember that things fall down in a gravitational field, and in a gravitational field the coordinate speed of light reduces as altitude reduces. Once you've got to a place where it's zero, it can't reduce any further, so things don't fall down any more. After that the rest of the stellar collapse is much the same as throwing things into a black hole that's already there.

The other student couldn't figure it out (of course) which was what I had intended. Any way, I realized that I'm not quite sure what's wrong with it myself. I understand, mostly from reading these threads, that as something approaches the event horizon:
1. It sends fewer signals
2. The signals it sends are increasingly redshifted.
At some point, it sends its last signal.

More or less.

After that signal, can we say that it has crossed the EH? Is this a meaningful thing to say from our point of view?

That's what this whole argument is about. I'm saying the "blow up" at the Schwarzschild event horizon has been skipped over by say Kruskal-Szekeres coordinates, which effectively place a stopped observer in front of a stopped light-clock and claim that this means that according to him, that clock is still ticking.

What about space-time distortion? Something at the event horizon should have a gravitational field indistinguishable from the same mass inside the singularity according to Newton's laws - I'm guessing the same applies to GR.

If you've got a place where light doesn't move, you haven't got anything by which you can measure space or time. It isn't so much distorted, as not there any more. But conservation of energy applies, you can't destroy energy, mass is still a measure of system energy, and around it there's still a gravitational field. If the sun somehow turned into a black hole, the Earth's orbit wouldn't change noticeably.

I think the answer lies somewhere around the lines that the Schwarzschild radius doesn't act as an event horizon prior to compression.

It's better to say the collapse goes as far as the Schwarzschild radius. If there's more material above, it collapses and the Schwarzschild radius increases. Kind of like a snowball collapsing into an iceball. The phrase "frozen star" wasn't coined for nothing.

But does this mean that the radius can never increase from our point of view, no matter how much junk we toss at the black hole?

No.

Or can we measure an increase of it after lobbing some massive object into it?

Yes.

Yeah, I hope my questions made sense.

It does. And even if it didn't, what's most important about this sort of thing is to think for yourself.

 

[Farsight]

GR, Quantum Mechanics, E&M. Crikey; is there anything you think that modern physics gets right?

Yes, plenty. But I think there's a lot of "cargo cult" corruption too. For example, if you read Feynman talking about QED, he said nobody knows why it works. But now people talk pompously about virtual particles as if they're real particles. Feynman never meant anybody to think that there's actual photons zipping back and forth between the electron and the proton in the hydrogen atom. But people do think this, and when you try to tell them about the evanescent wave aka near field, they just ain't listening.

ETA: And really, your "non-accepted" electron model isn't really off topic - at some point you're going to have to show us how to reconcile your notions of fermions with structure/spin as something rotating with SR.

It isn't my model. But there's absolutely no problem reconciling it with SR. Think of the wave nature of matter, remember that you can diffract electrons. Call it wavefunction if you prefer, or something else such as field excitation, it doesn't much matter. The moot point is moving waves, so have a read of The Other meaning of Special Relativity by Robert Close. When you're made of waves along with everything else, you always measure the local speed of waves to be the same. Because you haven't got anything else to refer to.

 

[Farsight]

Take care. Susskind will end up telling you about an elephant that's in two places at once. Take care with light cones too. Like reference frames and coordinate systems, they're abstract things. You can't point up to the sky and say "Look, there's a light cone. Your retina isn't actually "on the surface of many light cones". It's on the inside surface of your eye, your eye is in space, and light moves through space and terminates on your retina. It's important to stay very grounded with all this.

You can't actually look anywhere and experience reality directly, so I don't really see your point here. If I look at an apple, I may be seeing a real apple, or I may be seeing a very well done plastic apple and not be able to tell the difference. The apple may be red, or it may be that the lighting in the room creates the illusion that the apple is red.

The point is that Susskind, who you referred to, will tell you about elephants being in two places at once. The name in the game for that sort of thing is woo. And as for your point concerning that apple, I can pick it up and say I refute it thus. And throw it at your head.

Given that vision itself is an impossible problem that requires the brain to make assumptions about the world, your "if you can't see it, it's not real" stance makes little sense.

It makes every sense. What makes no sense is attaching more importance to things that aren't real than to things that are. That apple in your face is real. So is the speed of light varying with gravitational potential.

This isn't just how physics works: It's the only way that any accurate understanding of the universe (in any part) can work.

You employ hard scientific evidence that you can see with your own eyes to understand the universe. You don't ignore it because your head is full of abstract things that you can't see.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

In my analysis of the misty chamber experiments, I struggled to find a place to put the "gedanken high-speed camera", so that we "can see [that] one light beam [is] moving faster than the other". The solution I found is rather awkward (it involves doing unnatural things to the gedanken film, for example).

What's wrong with placing the camera at a point where all four mirrors are equidistant to the camera?

I'm a bit slow; I have only just remembered a post by Farsight which shows how absurd this "placing the camera at a point where all four mirrors are equidistant to the camera" procedure is¹.

Here's the Farsight post:

You though deny this by asserting that the speed of light at an event horizon is zero. This is wrong because the speed of light (no "coordinate") is always c.

And at the event horizon c is zero! Hence the gravitational time dilation goes infinite at the event horizon. Take the lower clock down to the event horizon, and this is what you've got:

|-----------------|
|-----------------|

And that reflects what we can see with our parallel-mirror light clocks losing synchronisation at different elevations, just like those super-accurate optical clocks.

It is the very same post in which Farsight introduces his "superhighspeed cameras" with which we can "watch the two light beams making progress in a misted chamber"!

Where do you place the cameras in this case? How do you determine which points are equidistant from all four mirrors? What sort of "misted chamber" could you use to get images like the Farsight diagram on the cameras' films?

Using farlight it's immediately obvious how you could do this; however, if all you have is ordinary light ...

¹ in the real world, one in which GR (as in, MTW or Einstein's GR) rules. In Farsight's fantasy/sci-fi world - where FGR rules - it's a piece of cake.

 

[Farsight]

Remember those exploding trains?

In this post I showed that, pace Farsight, in the real world, both trains explode (if they can't defuse the bomb), or neither train explodes (if the bomb on a train is defused at the same time the train hits the buffer).

But that assumes the trains signal each other with radios.

However, if they have ansibles, then what Farsight says¹ is right!

Therefore, ansibles are possible!!

Trash. There's no room for magic instantaneous communication in relativity. Besides, nobody's listening to you any more anyway. Your credibility is shot to pot.

All: just arrange the light beams like this: < . Or arrange your trains like this >< . Make them short trains. The upper train gets past the intersection before the lower train gets there. No observers see the trains crash.

 

[Farsight]

...ETA: I know you already knew this, I'm just pointing out that in certain exotic circumstances Farsight's point would be valid...

He isn't sincere Brian. He has no honesty. There's just no talking to people like that.

Call me old-fashioned, but I think I'll stick with referring to these particles as tachyons.

Forget tachyons, Brian. They're the product of another non-real solution. They've been mooted for fifty years plus, there's no evidence for them, and they're way past their sell-by date.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

The only thing that metric proves is that you dismiss patent scientific evidence and take refuge in mathematics.

Yet again, the clarion call of the crank: "math isn't real!"

This is from earlier in this thread.

Several JREF members have made similar comments, in this thread.

And there's an uncanny similarity with a great many of (recently banned) MM's posts; not only the disdain for math, but also the evident conviction that the crank truly, really, absolutely understands the nature of the reality which theories such as (the real) GR seek to describe in a quite specific and carefully defined way*.

When I was new to this thread, I didn't appreciate just how sweeping Farsight's aversion to math is. But I've been reading some other threads in which Farsight is kind enough to present his thoughts, and have yet to find any post, by him, which shows that he understands any math (beyond simple algebra)! For those who, like me (formerly), think Zig is exaggerating, check out The WAR: Susskind-Hawking battle thread (there are, it seems, rather a lot of other examples too).

* there's also an equally evident conviction that the crank, and the crank alone, does understand this; contemporary physicists are all clueless morons, although some long-dead ones are elevated to omniscience by judicious selections of out-of-context quotes

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Remember those exploding trains?

In this post I showed that, pace Farsight, in the real world, both trains explode (if they can't defuse the bomb), or neither train explodes (if the bomb on a train is defused at the same time the train hits the buffer).

But that assumes the trains signal each other with radios.

However, if they have ansibles, then what Farsight says1 is right!

Therefore, ansibles are possible!!

Trash. There's no room for magic instantaneous communication in relativity. Besides, nobody's listening to you any more anyway. Your credibility is shot to pot.

All: just arrange the light beams like this: < . Or arrange your trains like this >< . Make them short trains. The upper train gets past the intersection before the lower train gets there. No observers see the trains crash.

Amazing.

As I was typing a post about Farsight's extreme aversion to math, he goes and posts this!

Just like MM, he thinks diagrams are a substitute for doing the hard (to him) work with math, and - also like MM - considers it beneath his dignity to actually explain his enigmatic diagrams.

Of course, to explain the diagrams, he'd have to stop thinking in terms of absolute time and space and get his head around the subtleties of relativity, with its emphasis on what observers actually experience, how light actually travels, and how to relate the objective results of an experiment to GR (the real one, not FGR*) ....

* or perhaps it's FFGR, short for Farsight's Fantasy GR?

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Clinger, Vorpal, your r=6m noted. Do note that coordinate transformations are not forbidden by "FGR".

We know of quite a few coordinate transformations that are definitely forbidden by FGR. Can you give an example of a coordinate transformation that is not forbidden by FGR?

Even better: Can you describe an objective way for us to determine which coordinate transformations are forbidden, and which are not?

Or must every such question be resolved by querying the oracle of FGR?

Instead what's forbidden is erudite arrogance, intransigence, and groupthink.

Did you misspeak? As presented by its developer, John Duffield of Poole, FGR is founded upon uninformed arrogance, intransigence, and nonthink.

 

[Farsight]

I don't see the relevance of that to your claim that matter turns into gamma rays as it approaches the event horizon.

It isn't indisputably relevant, but Guybrush Threepwood asked me what really happens to the infalling observer in post #834 on page 21. And the 99.99% is a surprise to many, and it's interesting. Another interesting article is Are quasars star-making machines? Sure, it's a bit speculative, but the important point is that real-world cosmology is suggesting that very little of the infalling matter ends up in the black hole. I am too.