Busy week... That really doesn't make sense, but I think you're just throwing the word "temporal" in there as if it means something. Either way though, "mass never stops falling is a different and even more wrong claim than your usual one of a solid object with an infinite number of hard shells. Your jumping around doesn't make the last wrong go away, it just adds a new one -- and it's even worse: The only one who's ever described it as a physical surface is you. But getting away from that, you had just claimed, correctly (in post #306) that the event horizon of a collapsing star has to start at the center as almost a point, encompassing near zero volume. But you're now suggesting that you can pour an infinite amount of mass toward that near zero volume sphere and not grow the black hole. But the rest of the mass of the star piling-up just outside that point would put it far inside the Schwarzschild radius. You also didn't answer my question, but repeated a similar implication about what GR says...which I suppose answers my question: it is dishonest to imply that what you are saying is a correct description of the theory when you know it isn't. Or another way: It is dishonest to intentionally try to obfuscate the line between what you know the accepted theory is and what you think it should be instead. That's dishonest too. You can't be unaware that the mathpages article describes those models for the purpose of explaining why they don't work. Everything I described above is clearly stated in the link: There it is in plain English: your idea is not viable. It doesn't work. That's, of course, a lie as well.