This is something where you end up contradicting yourself....
Not at all and you have had that explained many times.
GR predicts compulsory collapse once Schwarzchild radius is reached...that means continued collapse once the EH has been reached.
At the same time GR predicts its own downfall at the classical point singularitiy...in fact GR specifically fails and is non applicable at the quantum/Planck level
That is the standard accepted view no matter how you chose to misinterpret it or dance around it. GR is not a QGT.
Many a times you have made a statement that
GR predicts its own downfall at Planck's level, that means GR fails at Planck's level or so.
Just as I have explained.
Not necessary to reframe anything....
GR fails inside EH.........
No, GR is not applicable at the quantum/Planck level by definition.
Its predictions apply to the rest of the BH up to the Planck/quantum level.
[Our extrapolation inside EH is quite meaningless, because as per GR maths the fourth dimension of spacetime that is time becomes spatial and meaningless wrt to outside observer, so I can say GR fails in a conventional manner.] Can you counter this argument ?
Along with what I have just explained, a few Professors have already told you that it is reasonable logical to assign properties inside the BH, such as spin for example, based on the properties and observations that exist outside the EH, and of course coupled with what GR tells us.
As far as I am concerned there is chef made spaghetti and edible soup inside EH, because we don't know what happens once inside EH. It is meaningless (or say highly theoretical) to say that it takes t = t1 seconds from r = EH to r = 0, because we really do not know the significance of this t1 outside EH from the relativity perspective.But once we say GR fails inside EH and we come up with something alternative, then surely this t1 can become meaningful.]
Your fascination with a well known and well used term for what happens inside the EH is admirable, but nothing to do with chefs etc.
If you were at all familiar with accepted BH cosmology, you would have been also familiar with the "spaghettification"terminology.
And your confusion still reigns, or possibly this is just another way out for you with the logical ability to assign properties inside the EH, along with the fact that one cannot compare the facet of time within the EH, to time outside the EH.
Part of the reason for this is because time comes to a stop at the EH, although we never ever get to see that.
That in no way though inhibits the properties that we can logically assign inside to what is viewed outside.
But again, this has been explained a few times before, and like jcc you are ignoring answers you do not want to hear, and that further deflates the BNS fiasco.
The problem is that you do not attempt to understand the point of view of alternative side, your dogma is either mainstream or nothing. You do not realize that mainstream comes from discussions, arguments, and multitude of ideas and efforts only......If we start calling alternative guys as anti science, dishonest, agenda driven, trolls...then world of science will become bull power only.
What I claim is accepted mainstream cosmology and it is not me that refuses to understand your view, its the fact that your view defies GR and that has been supported by all Professors.
Not sure how but anyway. The fact remains, you are no Chandra or Eddington or even a cosmologist, correct?