This is an ordinary phenomenon at paradigm shifting periods (see Kuhn’s book).

Notice, my reply to you in the LinkedIn blog has been removed by moderator. So, if you interested by real science, describing real world, and can read the research papers, not only their abstracts, below I present my reply without censorship:

“@Peter: “as I learned GR, the proper time continues on at it’s “proper rate” as objects fall towards the event horizon of a black hole. The distant observer sees the motion of the object slow down, slower and slower as the event horizon is approached – so that in the limit the object appears frozen at the event horizon.

But in the objects reference frame it is actually accelerating, and will zoom right through the event horizon. ”

Peter, as you “learned” is not GR, but BH paradigm, which is illegal hybrid of GR by Newtonian BHs and contains obvious internal contradictions. Main of them is following:

As you know, in GR the worldline r(t) of a particle on a falling dust shell, parametrized across world time t, does not cross grav.radius 2M eternally r(t)>2M, while exists our Universe – this simply follows from the Schw. solution, an exact solution of Einstein eq.

You also must know, that in GR the worldline, not only its small intervals, is invariant, and set of events along it does not change at any parametrization, thus at turning to proper times tau(t), as another parametrization of the same set of events, you again will come to the same restriction: r(t)=r[tau(t)]>2M.

A mistake in BH paradigm is ignoring of this constraint for any proper time moment be related by a definite moment of real world’s time t< infinity.

See also last discussion about frozars vs BHs, where I explained why GR leads only to frozars, while G.'t Hooft attempted to defend BHs:

@Peter: "you are the editor of the journal which published your paper".

We live in the period of deepest crisis in fund. sci. One of consequences of that is breaking of scientific ethics by editors of leading journals, who reject papers contradicting to "mainstream" paradigm directly or send them for peer reviewing to experts having conflict of interests.

In this situation I follow to one of best traditions of world economy – to guarantee quality of produced good by own name as a trade mark – my papers do not contain arbitrary hypotheses, internal contradictions and are based on experimentally well checked theoretical principles only. If they contradict to commonly accepted and "learned" concepts, mistaken are latter and they should be improved without hysterics.

In the case of collapse, we follow GR in the frozar picture, which described in my papers (independently where they are published!), and break GR in case of BHs.

]]>Still lack of response of professionals I understand as “Silence gives consent”. ]]>

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=175477793&gid=3091009&commentID=100079472&trk=view_disc&ut=1hUeCZBThExRs1 ]]>

http://www.linkedin.com/groupAnswers?viewQuestionAndAnswers=&discussionID=175477793&gid=3091009&commentID=100079472&trk=view_disc&ut=1hUeCZBThExRs1 ]]>

Main new property of the relativistic compact objects at all scales, except the lack of a horizon, is that now we deal with a new phase state of matter – the matter gravitationally-frozen on world time. ]]>

The observable consequences of the predictions of GR about properties of the compact objects in glowsar state and the relativistic explosion are discussed. ]]>

Observable examples of the relativistic explosion, or anticollapse, are, perhaps, the Big Bang and some explosions in astrophysics with huge energy release, do not explained by known processes.

Some idealized models and numerical simulations testify that at contracting of massive enough objects growing of pressure and temperature in internal layers can balance the gravitational pull and the explosive expansion is possible. ]]>