No, I have tried to return to my issue, my reason for mentioning the SNs at all. For this issue, what happens with the outer parts is simply irrelevant. Because the issue was the similarity of the inner part, the part which forms the black hole, with a part of a time-reversed big bang. Of course, your personal issue will be different. But my issue was to answer this: To reject a "nothing like", I have to present "some thing like", I don't need any "always like". Moreover, my issue was not only to reject this claim, for the purpose of rejecting it, but to show that this is a quite typical thing - elements of an ether interpretation, with "space" as an innocent name for the ether. Because, understood in this way, the sentence makes sense. In the ether interpretation, we have a velocity of the ether itself. And then one can distinguish between a wave in the ether, in a situation where the ether is not moving, and an expansion of the ether, where the galaxies move with the same velocity as the ether. So, in popular descriptions scientists do not hesitate to use elements of an ether interpretation in disguise, elements which make no sense from the point of view of the pure spacetime interpretation. This would be an interesting point for you, not? This talk is common mainstream talk, so you are obliged to defend it, not? So, what is the difference between a movement in space and movement of space in the spacetime interpretation of GR? Interested.