to Blobrama: What you called “wrong” was my statement, in post 37 taken out of context by omitting the preceding part I made bold below: “…do not confuse the "virtual particles" that modern physics imagines are the solution to the "action at a distance" problem - I.e. the particles that are exchanged between the sources of various forces with the real, but briefly existing particle of the vacuum polarization. Those polarization pair particles normally mutually annihilate within the time allowed by the uncertainty principle for them to exist. The only violation of this is when one of the pair falls inside the EH of a BH and leaves the other as a long lived real electron or positron in our universe. I.e. it is not a "virtual particle" but a real one …” Your post 40, responding to my request “What is wrong?” explains my “error” was to state that Hawking Radiation was associated with the capture of only one of the vacuum polarization pair. I.e. your post 40 rely was: “…The process is not a electron / positron etc type process. Hawkings radiation is essentially from a photon-antiphoton nonannihilate effect. …” But I have been very clear in several posts that neither the photon-antiphoton nonannihilate (which you seem to prefer) nor the vacuum polarization pair partial annihilation is correct. They are only verbal attempts to give humans, like me and you, who can not follow the GR +QM math a “warm fuzzy felling” as if we did understand what was going on. I was only commenting on your confusion about the role and nature of virtual particles (bold above, which you omitted) NOT stating that the vacuum polarization was correct POV, as you assumed I was and then called me “wrong.” My post 32 clearly shows that I consider both your preferred “virtual photons” & the “vacuum pair” to be inadequate attempts at VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS, not the correct GR+QM math. In post 32 I state: “…Some word descriptions imagine that photons ("thermal radiation”) remove mass for the BH. Others imagine that the vacuum polarization (usually electron/position appearing from nothing but for such short time that this is allowed by the QM uncertainty product of Delta E times Delta T). Then if these oppositely charged particles happen to be very close to the EH, one may be captured by the intense gravity gradient near the EH and the other not so it is new energy of long duration in our universe, and that energy must (not well explained in words how) come from the mass of the BH. … If I were to try to summarize in words, I would say that the prediction of Hawking's Radiation is "permitted" by the QM uncertainty but not caused by QM. It is caused by the (math as done by Hawking …” SUMMARY: I was not "wrong." - You just incorrectly thought I was supporting the vacuum polarization pair POV. I do not. Neither it nor your photon-antiphoton nonannihilate effect is correct. They are just attempts in words to provide a "warm fuzzy feeling."