This proper solution does not have the features of the claimed solution by Schwarzchild, Hilbert, et al. The horizon is vanishingly small
around the point mass. So the homogeneous "black hole" solution is actually the case of two distinct space times with one imbedded
in the other. They key detail is that the inner space-time is displacing the outer space-time and not overlapping it. This sort of
material space-time behaviour in the absence of any mass-energy forcing (stress-energy tensor) is one of the innovative features of
general relativity. It is not true that mass-energy is required to tell space-time how to curve. Space-time itself can induce curvature.
Well that makes sense because in effect anything behind an event horizon can no longer be considered as being in this universe, there is a separation between the space time in this universe and the space time inside the black hole, for all we know the rules of space time in this universe might not apply at all, perhaps different rules from another reality of dimension reach through the singularity to the event horizon?
Clocks do not run faster in gravitational potential wells as the mass
of the gravitating body is increased. They run slower.
Isn't that consistent with the speed of light and issues around dimensional space, mass, and the passage of time?
Time on an accelerating space ship does not slow down because the accelerating spaceship is getting heavier, it slows down because the speed is getting closer to the speed of light.
It would also suggest that black holes are black because the only things that can escape them are 2 dimensional infinitely massive objects for which time in our universe has stopped so they are a non event in space time...
Do black holes exist? The above homogeneous solution is possible from the Big Bang. But not from any stellar collapse.
This does not make sense to me.
Surely if anything is going to create one massive black hole it is compressing all the spacetime and matter of the universe into a point smaller than an atom even if it is only for the tiniest fraction of a second...
But then a black hole is not just an enormous amount of matter, it also needs to be highly concentrated into a small area of space time.
Of course one of the other problems is we talk about the fabric of space too much and we start considering it to actually be a fabric, which it isn't. The future expansion of space is described as leading to tears in the fabric of space, which doesn't make sense as space time isn't actually a fabric at all... we just use the term to describe something we still really don't understand properly.
If we have neutron stars, then we are likely to
have quark stars.
If we have neutron stars where all the electrons have been crushed into protons to form and object consisting of only neutrons because of the enormous gravity, then further increases in mas when the gravity further increases and a quark star is created... is it interesting that you take the qu of quark and replace it with a d and get a dark start of enormous mass and small size and minimal emission of energy or heat.
Hell for all we know the leading edge of space time might have an enormous thick shell of energy and matter that might be dragging space time out with it to expand into the empty void our universe is unfolding into. It might be dark matter because it is too far away to see and now it is moving too fast for us to ever see it.
Space time might be more like a field, where objects in the field effect the field effects on other objects also in the field.
A quark solid would have densities much higher than the billion tons per teaspoon of neutron stars. Before invoking an obviously
incorrect framework to claim black holes, we may want to consider that quark solids do not have any glint from photon scattering and
may emit any absorbed radiation at ultra low frequencies that none of our observational systems can detect. If we are dealing with
condensed dark matter objects then for sure they will have no glint and exhibit surface characteristics like those of the event
But what about things even heavier than that... the earth weighs roughly 5.9 x 10^24 kgs, so 5.9 x 10^21 tons... which is a little more than a billion tons per 2cm sized ball.
And what are up and down quarks made of and will further gravity reduce it to that in an even more dense state.
What density of matter requires an escape velocity that approaches the speed of light?
I would expect the tidal forces on any space ship would mean an event horizon is not needed to cause problems because even if you ship could move at a large fraction of the speed of light as it approached a quark star the tidal forces would shred it and render it incapable of powered flight anyway so escape would not be a possible option.
It would only be with very very large black holes where the tidal forces are much less excessive near the event horizon where a ship might pass with out noticing the trouble it is in before getting close to the singularity and being shredded by tidal forces there.
Surely the best argument against quark stars as an alternative to black holes is that they must be immensely hot and therefore not to be confused with black holes...